Google makes YouTube much slower for Firefox and Edge

[GoodBytes]

17 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Wrong. 

Both Chrome and Firefox absolutely, 100% support hardware accelerated video decoding. 

No idea where you got the idea the only edge does. 

I stand corrected. SOME codecs are hardware accelerated on Firefox and Chrome. H.265 isn't as there is royalty to pay.

YouTube video formats is ONLY decoded in hardware by Firefox or Chrome if you have a compatible GPU, else it goes through software.

So depending on the video and video quality you may or may not have hardware acceleration depending on your system specs.

[LAwLz]

38 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

I stand corrected. SOME codecs are hardware accelerated on Firefox and Chrome. H.265 isn't as there is royalty to pay.

Correct.

Edge supports HEVC if your GPU does (no software decoding) and neither Chrome nor Firefox supports it at all.

 

41 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

YouTube video formats is ONLY decoded in hardware by Firefox or Chrome if you have a compatible GPU, else it goes through software.

Well, duhh... The same is true for all browsers, including Edge.

You can't hardware accelerate video decoding without a compatible GPU.

 

41 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

So depending on the video and video quality you may or may not have hardware acceleration depending on your system specs.

Correct. Just like with Edge.

[EPENEX]

I installed the extension and a dark theme, and now my YouTube doesn't take 10 seconds to load. feelsgoodman.jpg

I assumed something was up about a month ago for development purposes I download Chromium and at one point in time tested out youtube on it, and was surprised by how fast it loaded while on Edge and Firefox is was slow as heck.

[Morgan Everett]

This makes me want to give up Chrome and give Edge another go, but it's always a beat or two behind, on both my phone and desktop.

[yian88]

4 hours ago, Crunchy Dragon said:

Been using the old YouTube design since I hate the new one, does this affect that one as well, or must I have the extension?

You cant use the old design they disabled the option to switch back.

 

No wonder the new youtube design is absolute garbage and slow even on chrome, its terribly slow, on firefox or others its ridiculous.

[Crunchy Dragon]

10 minutes ago, yian88 said:

You cant use the old design they disabled the option to switch back.

 

No wonder the new youtube design is absolute garbage and slow even on chrome, its terribly slow, on firefox or others its ridiculous.

I switched before they removed that option.

[PianoPlayer88Key]

Hmmm ... but what if this happens when you try to do youtube in Chrome?  I end up having to use FireFox recently.  Same thing happens when I try to type gmail.com (I have to navigate to mail.google.com which takes longer to type), and has even happened on occasion with google searches, and I see similar issues with some other sites as well sometimes.

 

[D13H4RD]

2 minutes ago, PianoPlayer88Key said:

Hmmm ... but what if this happens when you try to do youtube in Chrome?  I end up having to use FireFox recently.  Same thing happens when I try to type gmail.com (I have to navigate to mail.google.com which takes longer to type), and has even happened on occasion with google searches, and I see similar issues with some other sites as well sometimes.

 

"YouTube works best in Chrome*" 

* - We can't guarantee it 

[Zodiark1593]

2 hours ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

One thing I never really see anyone talk about involving Edge is how it handles video decoding.

From my experiences, it beats the hell out of Firefox and Chrome in that regard, especially in YouTube. A laptop that couldn't play 480p video properly in Chrome? It could do so at 720p60 (and if I really wanted to, 1080p60) on Edge.

By the way, that laptop has an AMD E1-1200. It's... uh, painful.

Youtube shoves VP9 down the PC's throat on every other browser but Edge, whether it can handle it or not. Edge gets h.264 from Youtube, which everything in the past decade can decode with ease.

[Dabombinable]

Ok. YT pages load instantly with the FF plugin installed. Nice.

[PlayStation 2]

Just now, Zodiark1593 said:

Youtube shoves VP9 down the PC's throat on every other browser but Edge, whether it can handle it or not. Edge gets h.264 from Youtube, which everything in the past decade can decode with ease.

I'll just say it: fuck VP9. It compresses slightly better, but at what cost? Not being able to play without dropping frames on something that isn't a good laptop or a decent desktop?

They really should keep the Opus audio, though.

[Dabombinable]

4 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

I'll just say it: fuck VP9. It compresses slightly better, but at what cost? Not being able to play without dropping frames on something that isn't a good laptop or a decent desktop?

They really should keep the Opus audio, though.

VP9 stopped me from watching YT videos on my P4 HT 3.2GHz laptop (2003) and dual PIII 1000 desktop (2000/2001), as well as made my 2012/2013 Asus U38N turn into a furnace when watching YT (as well as making it stutter with 720p 60fps and higher videos)

[Thaldor]

So, this is why the YouTube has been piece of fecal matter a while. I thought it was something about just my internet being sometimes what it is but turns out it's just the King Google doing what dictators do. Has been a real pain in the posterior when starting to watch a video and setting it right after to fullscreen and then it just sets back to window when YouTube finally loads the other stuff on the page.

4 hours ago, Techicolors said:

What's this about the Shadow DOM?

Something easy to do but hard to explain. Basicly it just hides stuff from the users and makes a lifes of webdevs much easier (think about YouTube video player as parts of a website in HTML and CSS divs, iframes and other stuff, a hell to do and would make the source code just bloat out of reason, Shadow DOM puts all of that under more manageable format, all those hundreds of lines of code under a simple <div id="video">, or something like that).

[AdmiralMeowmix]

Ah so Google is basically throttling youtube for everyone but those who use their browser. Isn't that something they can be sued/fined over?

[Tech Enthusiast]

So, a company is doing a facelift for their own web service and focus on making it pretty on their own browser.

Because other browsers don't support the same stuff, it is the company's fault and not the fault of the other browsers.

 

Honestly, nowadays people really just love to hate on the big companies.

Whenever they do something the only idea is that they do it to piss on costumers, attack competition and they all break the laws with every step on the way.

 

Seriously. It does not even matter if the tech behind this is outdated or flashing new. People would bash Google because Firefox does not support [insert tech x here].

 

You know, since it is old tech, the fix would be pretty easy. Just add the support for the "deprecated" tech again. It was there before, it is still somewhere in the repository,.. just readd it if you want your browser to run fast for YouTube.

 

A matter of a few clicks at best are not worth any hate or lost sleep at all.

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 hour ago, AdmiralMeowmix said:

Ah so Google is basically throttling youtube for everyone but those who use their browser. Isn't that something they can be sued/fined over?

The service itself is not being throttled. It's rendering the page that takes longer on other browsers not Chrome.

 

12 minutes ago, Rattenmann said:

So, a company is doing a facelift for their own web service and focus on making it pretty on their own browser.

Because other browsers don't support the same stuff, it is the company's fault and not the fault of the other browsers.

 

Honestly, nowadays people really just love to hate on the big companies.

Whenever they do something the only idea is that they do it to piss on costumers, attack competition and they all break the laws with every step on the way.

 

Seriously. It does not even matter if the tech behind this is outdated or flashing new. People would bash Google because Firefox does not support [insert tech x here].

 

You know, since it is old tech, the fix would be pretty easy. Just add the support for the "deprecated" tech again. It was there before, it is still somewhere in the repository,.. just readd it if you want your browser to run fast for YouTube.

 

A matter of a few clicks at best are not worth any hate or lost sleep at all.

Can you write out the steps to re-add it for us please? Thanks.

 

I mean, it's "pretty easy" to fix it right? Should be "pretty easy" to write those steps out. Thanks.

[Drak3]

17 minutes ago, Rattenmann said:

Because other browsers don't support the same stuff, it is the company's fault and not the fault of the other browsers.

Google's intentionally using a depreciated version of a depreciated API that isn't natively supported by anyone else explicitly to slow down Firefox and Edge.

 

[Linker]

Honestly didn't notice while running firefox.

ONLY because the website runs like crap in the first place on my "basically a chromebook with windows"

But chrome runs even worse so... I can't really switch if I wanted to.

 

 

(Screw you google)

[Tech Enthusiast]

1 hour ago, M.Yurizaki said:

The service itself is not being throttled. It's rendering the page that takes longer on other browsers not Chrome.

 

Can you write out the steps to re-add it for us please? Thanks.

 

I mean, it's "pretty easy" to fix it right? Should be "pretty easy" to write those steps out. Thanks.

 

Yes, it is easy, but obviously nothing a user can do.

The Browser vendor needs to do it. They removed the support, they can readd it.

 

But crying about mean google is easier i guess.

[Tech Enthusiast]

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

Google's intentionally using a depreciated version of a depreciated API that isn't natively supported by anyone else explicitly to slow down Firefox and Edge.

 

"Intentionally", so it is confirmed? Not just some speculation? There can be dozens of reasons to use "deprecated" stuff.

 

And even if, it is as easy as to just turn the support back on. A huge fat overreaction and speculation, nothing more.

[Drak3]

Just now, Rattenmann said:

"Intentionally", so it is confirmed? Not just some speculation? There can be dozens of reasons to use "deprecated" stuff.

 

And even if, it is as easy as to just turn the support back on. A huge fat overreaction and speculation, nothing more.

There is literally no reason to use V0, which only Google supports, over V1, which multiple vendors support. There is literally no reason to push the new design explicitly to Firefox and Edge, but not Internet Explorer.

[Brehohn]

Oh no... whatever shall I do with my few extra second or two of loading?

*tries it out*

Hm. The entire page loaded in one full swoop on Firefox. Blank page, and then ALL THE THUMBNAILS AT ONCE.

Honestly, I don't see the point of complaining about it. With the internet speeds we have today, this isn't much of an issue. It's a couple seconds slower. I can wait.

[Zodiark1593]

6 hours ago, Dabombinable said:

VP9 stopped me from watching YT videos on my P4 HT 3.2GHz laptop (2003) and dual PIII 1000 desktop (2000/2001), as well as made my 2012/2013 Asus U38N turn into a furnace when watching YT (as well as making it stutter with 720p 60fps and higher videos)

My old laptop (i5-460M) played 1080P VP9 flawlessly with about 50-60% cpu usage. Needless to say though, my battery life suffered grievously. I was not happy with Google then.

 

My Atom tablet is also confined to software decode outside Edge, though the 4 Silvermont cores seem to do a pretty decent job of decoding as well.

 

Didn't know dual PIIIs could decode H.264.

[vanished]

10 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Wrong. 

Both Chrome and Firefox absolutely, 100% support hardware accelerated video decoding. 

No idea where you got the idea the only edge does. 

In my testing, Edge can effortlessly play back 4K60 VP9 youtube while on the same machine, Firefox and chrome can't even manage 1080p60 of AVC or VP9, and yes, hardware acceleration is enabled in the settings and all that. 

[Sniperfox47]

Where's the outrage about this? Google's dogfooding polymer to show it off on their site. It's slower on the other browsers because it's using a polyfill... That's what happens when you use a polyfill... You get compatibility at the cost of performance...

 

If Google had, from the ground up redesigned YouTube to take advantage of these features sure, but they've been constantly improving Polymer for years, and by the time browsers have proper v1 API support for Shadow DOM Polymer should too, based on what the team has said at past events.

 

The API isn't "old" any more than WebGL 1 is "old", and it's depreciated because the final release version of the API has been finalized...

 

How do you expect Polymer to use a non-polyfill version of an API that nobody has a release of?