My personal concern is the smartphone. Apple concerns me less than Google, but not by much. Android has the better potential for full, verifiable independence-from-the-Mothership (via LineageOS, GrapheneOS, F-Droid, ...) but it all feels early, amateurish, almost like an ambitious project that advances only when capable strangers volunteer their spare time.
Because that's literally what those projects are.
It's the end of the weekend and I want to go so deep I don't even know if I'm being sarcastic anymore.
Here is an example for Google: https://superuser.com/questions/1135339/cant-block-connectio...
It works pretty well and as I have setup NextDNS to be the DNS resolver used by my access point, the family get the benefits of it without knowing about it. On the mobile, you need to set it up as VPN, this adds clutter in the notifications area, my kids do not like that.
Occasionally I like to fake wild conversations and go to completely out of character sites and locations just to throw their algos and tracking of me off. It's the only real way I can protest any more. :/
I also use the three technologies you mentioned. Fast mail has been great.
But yeah, I'm also phasing out my google usage. Personally getting off gmail and professionally migrating off firebase and already refuse to work with GCP in any capacity.
Something like Lockdown on iOS (works nicely even on unrooted devices like mine.)
And same rest of FAANG. Though Apple and Netflix still seem to be evil-lite for now
Edit, oo, I got it: MAANG. That way we can say, "Come on, MAANG!"
For most companies, it was a question of whether they were OK risking being left behind if other publishers got favourable treatment running stories on AMP validated pages.
This comes back to Google's domination of both search and Adwords. And it comes back to the unfortunate reality that people don't want to subscribe or otherwise compensate websites for putting out information for free.
What's new is that Google has now managed to alienate ad-supported publishers, their paying customers, as well.
Like MS in the 90'.
Don't worry, in 20 years, all their PR will say they are your best friend again. They will be the underdog for some unforseen reason, and will suddenly call for respecting your private life, encrypting everything and give power to the user.
The way MS does it for open source today.
It's the circle of life for corporations.
To be fair, we (the public) have been complacent and complicit. We so often opt for convenience and "personalization" and "free" without pausing to consider the implications. We write it all off as inevitable even though that's not the case. Google and such will take that continue to nudge it further and further in their favor.
"The Age of Surveillance Capitalism" is an amazing - and sometimes boring :) - dive of both depth and breadth. It altered my lens for the better.
( Give up your IP)
Huh? No, "ad-supported" means these publishers are getting paid to display these ads, not paying for anything, so they aren't customers. They're getting paid, which means they're suppliers. (What they supply is the eyeballs, yours and mine and everybody else's, that consume the ads.)
In business, "the customer" is the one who pays for a good or service they wish to acquire: Here, that's the advertisers.
I thought we're still talking of accusations, not proven facts (tho I believe them true).
>249. The speed benefits Google marketed were also at least partly a result of Google’s throttling. Google throttles the load time of non-AMP ads by giving them artificial one-second delays in order to give Google AMP a “nice comparative boost.” Throttling non-AMP ads slows down header bidding, which Google then uses to denigrate header bidding for being too slow. “Header Bidding can often increase latency of web pages and create security flaws when executed incorrectly,” Google falsely claimed. Internally, Google employees grappled with “how to [publicly] justify [Google] making something slower.” 
I'm tired of seeing "your browser is unsupported" and denied access while using a chromium based alternative. Or broken features because someone had to have their bells and whistles
It's like Internet Explorer all over again! Why would anyone do this?
We need to use the business website that Auth0 logs us into, but I’m not touching Auth0 until they fix their stuff to work with more privacy-respecting browsers. I can appreciate how difficult that may be from a technical point of view, but as an end user, no thanks.
Opera is basically Chrome, and supports the same features, but alot of websites will complain to high heaven, or somehow find a way to break a feature due to whatever it thinks the useragent means.
Like it or not, at least Google blazes ahead and brings new features to the browser sphere. It's not like innovation can be expected from Firefox any more, not with them cutting costs on the development team.
If someone says it's bad because corporate interests shouldn't push innovation... well, I'd like to understand why they're okay with the explicitly bought and paid for OpenJS board seats, or the permanent corporate tetrarchy for HTML. A lot of developers seem to have unrealistic expectations about how software governance works.
At least for AMP, I indeed am glad because it finally forced the big media houses to provide pages that didn't suck ten freakin' megabytes off my 50€/2GB data plan (yeah, that were German mobile data prices until not too long ago!) for a single page load with under 10KB of actual content.
I'm not particularly liking the situation, but the fact is that the only entity able to actually force change is Google.
ETA: Sorry, I forgot Apple who managed to get the Web rid of the proprietary, expensive (for authors) and insecure scourge that was Adobe Flash, but that was about the only progress that came from Apple. I'm not counting PWAs because Apple utterly failed to make web apps actually competitive with App Store apps for profit reasons!
The end effect is a broken, incompatible web.
The only thing that is still, for now over than thirty years, needing massive effort is HTTPS client certificates.
ETA: And... best of all, Chrome and FF forced people to regularly update, meaning the days of supporting a browser that hadn't seen an update in a decade (IE6) are gone. Mobile devices aside, you only need to take about half a year worth of browser versions to test, and cross-browser compatibility issues have all but vanished for standard stuff (with the notable exception of Apple).
Sounds like you're in the business of making that crappy web bloat the rest of us despise. Which makes your whining about "download ten megabyte for ten kilobytes of content" doubly ironic.
The majority of these things are not from Google/Chrome and not from this past decade.
<img srcset> was first introduced by Safari and proposed by Apple to the WhatWG in 2012; I believe for their iPhone 4 with the 2× Retina display. But Webkit was already thinking in 2006 about High DPI.
The <video> element was first proposed by Opera to the WhatWG and standardised there. I believe the first big adopter was Safari on iPhone, because of no Flash, of course.
Media Queries were first proposed and specced by Håkon Wium Lie of Opera in 2001. (Good) Browsers for the first years implemented just a subset of that feature (the media types). In 2007 Apple released the first iPhone and adopted the media queries syntax, especially the viewport width and height which made the former mostly unknown specification more popular.
CSS animations (and transitions and transforms) were proposed by Apple in late 2007 after implementation in Safari:
I thought I remember that Apple first used these technologies for Mac OS X‘ web-based Dashboard widgets but in retrospect that must have been <canvas>.
WebRTC and WebASM seem to be more Chrome things, yes, and from the past decade.
(I don't have a big point; just some annoying memories of following web standards in that decade more closely than now.)
From what I remember, web developers (including me) were so utterly pissed about IE6 being in a state of a years-long feature freeze that Firefox and later Chrome actually had their chance to rise.
The idea is that the advertiser ultimately wants to buy a certain amount of conversions. With their ad budget being roughly constant, better targeting means that you need to show fewer ads of that advertiser to get to that point. So, you're decreasing the denominator, increasing cost per impression.
This is obviously oversimplified, because actual payment happens at the intermediate step of click. But the inherent feedback loops finally work out to the above.
That's not right at all for a large segment of advertising: the cheaper conversions are, the more most advertisers are willing to spend.
Imagine I currently earn a marginal profit of $10 on each conversion (widget sold etc): this means roughly I'm willing to pay up to $10 for a conversion that wouldn't have happened otherwise.
Conversions that cost more than $10 are definitely not worth it to me. I have some appetite for conversions that cost close to $10, but at some point I run into (likely temporary) capacity constraints and my marginal profitability decreases. The cheaper conversions are, the more I can continue to increase volume, and so the more I'll spend.
Additionally, internet advertising is competing with other forms of advertising, and advertisers want the most cost effective medium. Increase the cost of a conversion, and the marginal advertiser shifts away from online ads.
One way to see this is to imagine that instead of talking about online ads we are talking about any other product. Raise the price (cost per conversion) and people will decrease the amount they buy.
(Disclosure: I work on ads at Google, speaking only for myself)
This is just a form of supply/demand curve.
The issue here is Google controls most of the market, giving them far more power to optimize the supply curve to maximize Googles profit leaving the consumer no other competitor to fall back on to lower prices (FB maybe?, more likely to collude and keep prices high).
Google cannot act like ads are 'any other product' where there are healthy, competitive markets.
That said, Google and Facebook captured most of the value from targeted advertising and left only crumbs to publishers, so they don’t really have an incentive to maintain the status quo. The use of invasive tracking technology is forced onto them by advertisers.
As an advertiser, why would I pay big money to target an ad to the affluent New Yorker reading audience when I can target those same people for pennies on the dollar on other websites?
The same happened when covid first broke out. Brand conscious advertisers didn't want to be associated with any covid-related content, no matter what the context.
And it works, because now even large companies like Slack just don't care enough about Firefox to support major features on it.
I don‘t think it was malicious, but still incredibly bad considering gsuite/chrome connection.
Safari is decidedly neither behind nor as broken as the narrative suggests.
Safari ships about as many WebAPIs as Firefox does, and no one blames Firefox to be "behind on standards". More, Firefox is increasingly siding with Safari when deciding not to implement certain Chrome-only "standards".
Also see this nice take over at Quirksmode (and follow the links): https://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2021/08/breaking_th...
just recently i ran into incompatibilities with Safari < 14 needing a shim due to still having the old-spec MediaQueryList api:
This is true. Apple's inane insistence that everything has to be updated only once a year is truly baffling.
I'm somewhat sceptical about evergreen browser, but that's mostly because I hate having the user interface changed under me without any action on my part. I would have hated to get the Safari 15 Beta just by opening my browser in the morning. A better update strategy seems to me to keep the big UI changes for a yearly update; but update the web engine somewhat more often, bi-monthly or so.
I can't emphasize strongly enough how much I agree with this.
Why can't we as a society add code to web browsers faster?
ADDED. I use sarcasm very sparingly, but in this case, I can't think of another way to make my point that is not a lot longer.
No matter whether we ascribe it to evil or the sheer incompetence of Google engineers (the job which so many proud themselves for as in: "I worked at Google!" lol), it remains Google's fault and not the fault of things they subtlely try to push it to.
It made Microsoft utterly wealthy and able to survive for another decade until they were able to transition to services, so not everything is rosy. But, they are not the only option anymore.
With another paradigm shift, Google won't be either.
I'm not sure Google should be the only one to decide the web's future.
Since they quasi monopolized the browser, they act like they own the web.
Also, recent research has svown me that people on Slashdot doesn't like Google Chrome either.
Firefox is not dying because HN users criticize it. HN users might even use Firefox in a greater proportion than the general public.
We try to protest, we try to raise awareness of the current situation.
If instead of doing that we would actually said that Firefox is dead, it would be more detrimental. Users will try it and make a lot of bad publicity. Mozilla Foundation management will use it to demonstrate they are doing a great job while continuing putting Firefox in danger.
We can't take ownership of Firefox but we can pressure towards it getting better stewardship.
I don't get why you use a so dismissive tone? I replied to a comment that wasn't just about me but about all HN users criticizing current state in which Firefox is.
What do you expect from us? Donate money to a mismanaged product so the management can raise their bonuses? Quit our jobs and start forking Firefox?
Nobody is a hero. Just some people are not sticking their heads in the sand because sticking heads in the sand wouldn't help.
To make it worse you cannot donate towards the product, only towards the management (!)
They are quite clear about this if you ask the right questions, but not until then so I guess a lot of people think they have donated towards the browser and have instead sponsored the foundation that milks the browser company dry (seriously USD500M a year is quite some money).
It's easy to blame others and excuse yourself, but if I could find the will to get a job at Mozilla to try to help the company to a better end, then why can't some of you folks who always act like you have all the answers?
If we aren't willing or able to do better than Mozilla, then we're stuck with the Mozilla we get, no matter how much we complain about it.
Is that a purely hypothetical if, or another way to say "since I could..."? If the former, then what gives you more right to criticize the GP than they have to criticize Mozilla?
For anybody who are similar to me and has a similar workload, Firefox is still much better, it just isn't order of magnitudes anymore.
I'm sure Google should not decide anything at all. We should decide what's right and impose it on them.
I felt that it was important to ask these questions on the AMA (there was a fair few in the sli.do in other areas around trust) that centered around all the different pieces of work we do but also knowing that we're not the AMP team we can only answer with our perspective - we try to do everything in the open and developers should rightly judge us on how well we do. I do encourage people to check out the blink process as a place to keep a check on what we are thinking about.
(I left Google many years before AMP was ever a thing, so no inside knowledge.)
“We received no funds from Google for the project,” a spokesperson for Automattic said when asked if the company was compensated as a partner in this effort.
There are ways to be compensated without receiving funds.
Not being argumentative, I’ve just never came across a link to an Apple News article.
Stop trying to make PWAs happen. It's not going to happen.
For me: Both.
> My view is that a browser is a really good way to deliver applications - in fact, I prefer them to any other form of application.
It's the Google issue. They've been shoving these APIs down our throats trying to make it happen solely to build up the Chrome ecosystem. Firefox does not and will not ever support them, and they will never become an actual web standard, although Google has tried to present it as such.
I don't even work on the web professionally, and even I can figure this stuff out. It's really not that hard.
This is not even wrong. I'm sorry; I never post just to criticize someone's comment. But yours was the top comment on the page and was, in addition to being wrong, condescending to an author who is clearly very knowledgeable (I say that as a web publisher who has monetized with ads for more than a decade).
From the article:
> [The recent DOJ lawsuit against Google] claims that Google falsely told publishers that adopting AMP would enhance load times, even though the company’s employees knew that it only improved the “median of performance” and actually loaded slower than some speed optimization techniques publishers had been using. It alleges that AMP pages brought 40% less revenue to publishers. The complaint states that AMP’s speed benefits “were also at least partly a result of Google’s throttling. Google throttles the load time of non-AMP ads by giving them artificial one-second delays in order to give Google AMP a ‘nice comparative boost.‘”
This is a very big deal and a huge trust buster, and a giant dick move by Google against publishers. It's literally an evil act by a company that said Don't be Evil. The article is spot on that AMP has irreparably damaged publishers' trust.
I provided a link that explains exactly how it works. The reason it's not even wrong is that it's absolutely correct. I say that as somebody who has actually read some AMP docs and understands the value proposal of same origin serving for prerendering.
> This is a very big deal and a huge trust buster
It would be if true, but blindly trusting the prosecutor is a huge patsy move on the author's part. They have no clue what the mechanism is. I provided it.
It has nothing to do with "pre rendering" its built right into the CSS.
The term "rendering" is used
With CSS, you can define pixel-perfect areas for stuff to be rendered into, which makes the browser not having to decide on the size of the area after it has loaded further material from third-party sources. Doing so reduces "screen flickering", which is generally annoying (and the major reason why I block ads with a vengeance). This can be described as "pre-rendering" when you understand rendering as (a).
Or do you just mean that all possible ad creatives are server-side-rendered, so to speak, and kept ready in a google cache?
Edit: oh probably pre rendered by the user browser in the background. In that case any ad could still trigger it‘s impression with a viewport listener, if that‘s what google needed them to do.
With AMP, Google (and Microsoft and the other companies running AMP caches) can verify that the ad doesn't trigger an impression until viewed, which they need to do because they serve it themselves.
> Does it do a speculative auction when you load the search results page?
> It so, that is an incredibly unfair advantage for google.
Why would it be? Anybody can participate in the auction.
The one second delay is so that ads that aren’t sandboxed and loaded client side, won’t impact the reading experience. For ads that are loaded server side, they can ensure the quality is high enough that they can be displayed while content is rendering.
Where does it say that? The delay is from the ad spot not even being available to bid on until the user opens the article, some timeout to receive all the bids, and then some time to fetch the ad from the winner's ad server instead of returning the ad content immediately after the winner has been determined.
> For ads that are loaded server side, they can ensure the quality is high enough
For ads that are loaded server side, they can just validate against the spec to ensure that it is safe for the AMP cache to serve inside the article.
Or have you even read the article?
The author made the elementary mistake of blindly trusting the prosecutor without putting on his engineer hat to figure out if the prosecutor's allegations made any sense whatsoever.
>> Or have you even read the article?
> Yes, yes, and yes.
Not so much on that last "yes":
> The author ... without putting on his engineer hat
>>> Sarah Gooding
Putting on her engineer hat.