Hacker News Reader

Comment by zaarn | Hacker News Reader

And now I know why Youtube always takes several seconds to begin working after page load. Usually it would sit there, showing me a thumbnail or even daring to play an add while basically every single UI element was a grey blob slowly pulsing while the javascript in the background was busy shitting data into a polyfill. And with that addon? Basically instant page load.

Why in all that is holy did anyone think this was a good idea and why did noone bother to test this on Firefox or if they did why did the engage in such shitty behaviour?

View on HN

>Why in all that is holy did anyone think this was a good idea and why did noone bother to test this on Firefox

Because Google only cares about making Chrome look good.

Take a look at pretty much _every_ Google property and at some point or another they've fucked over other browsers in order to make Chrome more attractive for end-users.

I don't think that most google employees do this in a malicious or active manner. But I do think management encourages such outcomes.

I'm basically no longer going to support Chrome on my projects, if it works, yay, if it doesn't, get a real browser.

Honestly what should one consider it then, gross incompetence. I work in a fairly small company, we have 100s of unique forms in our application and we try to make it work and work fast in 3 browsers and sometime we do find/gets reported on performance problem at specific things and we fix those.

How many unique pages or functionality the youtube site has. Am I missing something here? The scaling problem of youtube backend is amazing, complicated and unique. What is the unique uber complicated functionality does the youtube page itself has that they can't test their main page loading up 5 times slower in 2 of the 3 browsers? Do they even open it another browser?

Just set the deadlines tight enough or create the right work environment and testing in other browsers vanishes without a second thought from the employees mind. Regardless of whether or not they want to.

It’s not incompetence when the failure is deliberate.

Microsoft with their “warnings” about DR-DOS for example.

If the outcomes are encouraged, it is both malicious and active.

and yet, the saddest thing of them all, is that one can just... install Chrome!

it's not like the dark ages of IE6, where having to resort to use IE6 was also forcing to use Windows as well and forcing to use a dated, closed, non standards compliant browser.

Chrome is free, available essentially everywhere, standards compliant, fast and with cutting edge web features.

And that's a pity, that's what makes it just too easy to create a monopoly.

and yet, the saddest thing of them all, is that one can just... install Chrome!

The issue is that Google is possibly resorting to actions that violate antitrust laws in the US and the EU to encourage users to switch to Chrome. Antitrust isn't about monopolies; it's about the reduction of competition through abuse of market position. A monopoly isn't required to violate antitrust laws, nor is market competition a defense.

Chrome IS the new IE6. Just consider the number of times that Chrome breaks features because Google thinks webdevs can't think. And Websites breaking because I'm not using Chrome is exactly why IE6 was shit. Websites worked in IE6 but not anything else. THAT was the true tragedy.

I need reading mode and mobile uBlock Origin to use the web. This is something Chrome will never have because it threatens their advertising business.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com