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

[S w a t s o n]

1 minute ago, Lukyp said:

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

yes

[Guest]

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

yes

lmao what the hell 

[GoodBytes]

42 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).

i think it is a mixture of Microsoft underestimating the scope of work needed for Edge, and the lack of support from web developers (which is understandable)

 

42 minutes ago, Sauron said:

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?

I want to say, that Microsoft should have made EdgeHTML open source, it could have helped a lot (although it may have also helped the other web browser engines), but seeing that Edge just could not separate itself from Windows 10, is a real issue. Something screwed up in EdgeHTML implementation at the architectural level where it is locked to Windows 10. The company did talk about having Edge being separated from the dependency of Windows, and would allow faster updates, highlighting how it will be different from IE.... but that never came to be, not even the front end. So a big screwed up has occurred, that is clear. Making open source could open things to stuff that they don't want to open source from Windows, at least not yet.

 

42 minutes ago, Sauron said:

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.

Agreed.

[S w a t s o n]

8 minutes ago, Lukyp said:

lmao what the hell 

or Pascal (GTX 10 Series) and newer, i forgot

[mr moose]

56 minutes ago, Sauron said:

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.

What MS does is take a  punt on creating their own methods/standards hoping it is successful enough to become "the" standard.  That is what has worked for other things like office. Though the thing with that is they are only shooting themselves in the foot if it doesn't work, if it does work it just becomes the standard like office did. However with what google are doing, they are actually using their massive web presence to artificially effect other browsers. That is a nay nay. Intel did it with their compiler fucking up AMD for some time, this is no different really.

[Guest]

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

or Pascal (GTX 10 Series) and newer, i forgot

Oh that should make sense for hardware 4k HEVC decoding (still if I don't remember wrong also the last 2gens of AMD cards and 9xx NVIDIA series) but I don't understand why not just using the software decoder, it isn't that bad

[S w a t s o n]

Just now, Lukyp said:

Oh that should make sense for hardware 4k HEVC decoding (still if I don't remember wrong also the last 2gens of AMD cards and 9xx NVIDIA series) but I don't understand why not just using the software decoder, it isn't that bad

DRM, you have to use HDCP2.2 monitors and cables and only Windows App Sore or Edge. If you break the DRM chain at any point no 4k. 99% of people watching netflix are not watching actual 4k.

[Neftex]

edge had the best hw acceleration for youtube in my experience, no dropped frames and smooth

 

fuck google

[S w a t s o n]

AMD is not supported as per netflix

Spoiler

 

[Guest]

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

DRM, you have to use HDCP2.2 monitors and cables and only Windows App Sore or Edge. If you break the DRM chain at any point no 4k. 99% of people watching netflix are not watching actual 4k.

Lol right, HDCP, didn't know it would't be happy with software decoders too 
 

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

AMD is not supported as per netflix

  Hide contents

 

Double lul
But that's doesn't have an explanation 

[S w a t s o n]

Just now, Lukyp said:

Lol right, HDCP, didn't know it would't be happy with software decoders too 
 

Double lul
But that's doesn't have an explanation 

Hardware DRM in Intel 7th gen and Pascal

[Mira Yurizaki]

6 minutes ago, Lukyp said:

Oh that should make sense for hardware 4k HEVC decoding (still if I don't remember wrong also the last 2gens of AMD cards and 9xx NVIDIA series) but I don't understand why not just using the software decoder, it isn't that bad

It's media companies telling Microsoft they need to implement a DRM scheme to protect their precious movies/music/shows/whatever or the content isn't coming to them.

 

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

So we find out why edge wasn't the best and peoples response is this is fine because it wasn't the best.  IMO that is the wrong attitude, everything on the web should be an open standard so no company can control how good another companies product is.   Imagine if Sony decided to encode their DVD's so they only played HD on Sony equipment?  Would everyone be fine with that?

It humors me when people go "CHOICE IS GOOD FOR THE CONSUMER" but something like this is "A SINGLE STANDARD IS GOOD FOR THE CONSUMER"

 

Though to be fair, I think this would only be a problem if Google implements something in Chrome to make Google's sites perform better. i.e., there's a performance difference between Chrome and Chromium. If Chromium is fine, then because of its open source nature, everyone else can update to do what they did. Though it doesn't justify what Google does. If anything, they're wasting people's time.

[Guest]

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

Hardware DRM in Intel 7th gen and Pascal

 

5 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

It's media companies telling Microsoft they need to implement a DRM scheme to protect their precious movies/music/shows/whatever or the content isn't coming to them.

Lol pirates would steal content anyway and as always that just makes damage to consumers 

[mr moose]

13 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

It's media companies telling Microsoft they need to implement a DRM scheme to protect their precious movies/music/shows/whatever or the content isn't coming to them.

 

It humors me when people go "CHOICE IS GOOD FOR THE CONSUMER" but something like this is "A SINGLE STANDARD IS GOOD FOR THE CONSUMER"

 

Though to be fair, I think this would only be a problem if Google implements something in Chrome to make Google's sites perform better. i.e., there's a performance difference between Chrome and Chromium. If Chromium is fine, then because of its open source nature, everyone else can update to do what they did. Though it doesn't justify what Google does. If anything, they're wasting people's time.

 

In my opinion if companies want to make something proprietary or work in their own weird way then fine, that's up to them (thinking of the lightning connector and Gsync), conversely if they want to adopt open standards then that is also fine.  Open standards tend to provide a better foundation for consumers (less incompatibilities to think about).  It's just when companies use their position to artificially degrade a competitors product that I have a problem.  

 

 

[Trik'Stari]

I can't be specific, but I know a major public school system that has severe lockdowns on any websites about gaming.

 

Oddly enough, these lockdowns only apply on Chrome, and are completely non-existent on the student provided laptops on the Edge Browser.

 

This speaks volumes to me.

[vetali]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

Whilst I do agree, this does explain why MS has had such a hard time getting back into both the phone market and web browser.

 

So we find out why edge wasn't the best and peoples response is this is fine because it wasn't the best.  IMO that is the wrong attitude, everything on the web should be an open standard so no company can control how good another companies product is.   Imagine if Sony decided to encode their DVD's so they only played HD on Sony equipment?  Would everyone be fine with that?

That'd be the smart thing to do, but it'll never happen. It would have to be made into a law, and some of our lawmakers were asking google's CEO questions about iphones. So yeah. I have little faith that would ever happen. 

[LAwLz]

13 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

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

I am in no way shape or form suggesting that.

If you ask me, Microsoft made a very bad decision when they decided to go with Blink as the new browser engine. I would have loved to see them go with Gecko instead.

 

13 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

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

You're talking about that, but that's not what I have been arguing against this entire time.

My objection against your post was strictly your claim that web developers were conspiring to make their websites incompatible with non-IE browsers for no technical reasons.

This is the claim you made, and all my posts since then have been made to disprove that, and offer a far more logical explanation that doesn't rely on unfounded conspiracy theories.

On 12/18/2018 at 1:28 PM, GoodBytes said:

And many times, like contracted software developers at the time, would purposefully ensure a lock down, as the contract states specific environment it needs to run in. It could be done to open and works with all sorts of environment, but usually web dev companies likes money, so they lock it down and hope of future contracted work to make it support a different environments.

 

Not going to response to the other nonsense you posted because it is completely, 100%, irrelevant to the argument I am having with you.

I want you to post solid evidence that the conspiracy theory you posted is true. Until then I will think it is a pathetic attempt at shifting blame from Microsoft when they at the time were notorious for deliberately making their browser incompatible with the standards other browsers used, forcing developers to either only support IE, or do twice the amount of work (which they often didn't do).

 

So please, before you write a response about how bad Google is and how Google are now in the same position as Microsoft were back then, keep in mind that I am not arguing that. I am not trying to have that conversation at all. All I want is for you to prove that web developers deliberately blocked other web browsers so that they could demand more money. That's it. I am not talking about anything Google has done. I am not talking about anything Google might do in the future. I am talking about that specific paragraph I quoted from you, and nothing else.

[LAwLz]

13 hours ago, mr moose said:

What MS does is take a  punt on creating their own methods/standards hoping it is successful enough to become "the" standard.  That is what has worked for other things like office. Though the thing with that is they are only shooting themselves in the foot if it doesn't work, if it does work it just becomes the standard like office did. However with what google are doing, they are actually using their massive web presence to artificially effect other browsers. That is a nay nay. Intel did it with their compiler fucking up AMD for some time, this is no different really. 

There are very big differences though.

Microsoft often push for de-facto standards. That is to say, it might be something proprietary but "everyone uses it so it's the standard".

What Google often does with things is that they create something which they push for to become an open standard. VP8/VP9, WebP, SPDY, QUIC, and the list goes on.

 

De facto standards can sometimes be bad (like PSD, RAR and DOC) but they can sometimes be alright (PDF if you exclude Adobe's XML Form architecture and Adobe JavaScript).

 

Open and free standards are never bad though, because they can be freely implemented, does not cost money, or any of that sort.

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

There are very big differences though.

Microsoft often push for de-facto standards. That is to say, it might be something proprietary but "everyone uses it so it's the standard".

What Google often does with things is that they create something which they push for to become an open standard. VP8/VP9, WebP, SPDY, QUIC, and the list goes on.

 

De facto standards can sometimes be bad (like PSD, RAR and DOC) but they can sometimes be alright (PDF if you exclude Adobe's XML Form architecture and Adobe JavaScript).

 

Open and free standards are never bad though, because they can be freely implemented, does not cost money, or any of that sort.

How can a standard (de-facto or otherwise) be bad when there is literally no cost or barrier to its usage and everyone uses it? like .doc

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Open_Specification_Promise

[GlowKitty]

Google has become really really scary these days, and that's why I'm switching back to Firefox.

 

Edit: or rather, that I have switched back to Firefox.

[LAwLz]

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

How can a standard (de-facto or otherwise) be bad when there is literally no cost or barrier to its usage and everyone uses it? like .doc 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Open_Specification_Promise

DOC was only "opened up" (if we ignore all the issues of the open specification promise, such as it potentially not covering any GPL program) in 2008 (and as the article mentions, Microsoft has left out information even for their "open" specs).

DOCX which replaced DOC was first released in 2006. So they "opened it up" 2 years after they had released the replacement.

 

DOCX was created as a response to organisations demanding an open format, to move away from Microsoft owned, proprietary formats like DOC (although Microsoft hijacked and ruined that process as explained in this post).

[vorticalbox]

And I'm moving to fire fox as my main browser.

 

Only why to beat this sort of bullshit is to vote with your wallet or in this case user stats.

[Dabombinable]

18 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

DOC was only "opened up" (if we ignore all the issues of the open specification promise, such as it potentially not covering any GPL program) in 2008 (and as the article mentions, Microsoft has left out information even for their "open" specs).

DOCX which replaced DOC was first released in 2006. So they "opened it up" 2 years after they had released the replacement.

 

DOCX was created as a response to organisations demanding an open format, to move away from Microsoft owned, proprietary formats like DOC (although Microsoft hijacked and ruined that process as explained in this post).

The stunts pulled with .doc is why only Microsoft Office could work with it correctly. Unlike with .docx which pretty much everything works with, similar to .odt (though I do know of some programs that only use Microsoft's xml file formats, eg. Kingsoft Office).

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

DOC was only "opened up" (if we ignore all the issues of the open specification promise, such as it potentially not covering any GPL program) in 2008 (and as the article mentions, Microsoft has left out information even for their "open" specs).

DOCX which replaced DOC was first released in 2006. So they "opened it up" 2 years after they had released the replacement.

 

DOCX was created as a response to organisations demanding an open format, to move away from Microsoft owned, proprietary formats like DOC (although Microsoft hijacked and ruined that process as explained in this post).

I guess you can always find people who'll shit on anything on the internet,  MS could have kept it all proprietary and forced the OSS community to work harder toward a standard but they didn't.  Call it whatever you want.

 

 

[LAwLz]

15 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I guess you can always find people who'll shit on anything on the internet,  MS could have kept it all proprietary and forced the OSS community to work harder toward a standard but they didn't.  Call it whatever you want.

What are you on about?

All I was pointing out is that:

1) DOC was only opened up once a new standard had been released. Back when it was actually being used and relevant, it was very much a closed de facto standard.

2) Even after it was released under the Open Specification Promise, it was not fully open because it still put restrictions and did not offer ensured protection if someone were to implement support for it.

3) As a side note I threw in that the DOCX's standardization process was very questionable, and the version Microsoft have been using is not the actual open standard (traditional rather than strict).

 

You asked me, so I answered.

Pointing out that for example Microsoft only opened up the DOC format after a replacement had been released is hardly "shitting on them", especially not when you were the one who asked me.