> Google’s attorney didn’t contest any of this... pointing out, without saying explicitly, that an app at the scale of Netflix can afford to bypass the store and rely on a browser signup
ie., Google's attorney confirms the app-store model is a predatory racket
> thanks to all devs that have helped to transform the Web into ChromeOS.
I can't believe how shortsighted most developers are. Don't build your castle in someone else's kingdom, etc. Because in the long run it hurts almost everybody and yourself included. This holds for the entire platform economy. If you think government regulation is bad, then wait until you see a market regulated by a platform owner.
It feels like the computing industry is made up of an alliance of those who never had any IE6 experience, combined with those who spent the 90s and 00s deeply into the Microsoft ecosystem
I try not to think too much about how I mostly can not and likely will not see 1080p and higher content from my Linux desktop due to (a lack of) Chrome and DRM
Chrome for Linux is still 720p at best and I'd expect that to drop over time, not go up.
Chrome isn't what's holding higher resolution Netflix back on Linux, it's the lack of a signed graphics driver by an authority that would revoke anything that didn't enforce the DRM and pushes the decryption to trusted hardware.
Assuming that the widely touted "statistic"[1] that the global developer cohort doubles every 5 years or so, this would inevitable make it true that more than 75% of all devs have no idea how predatory MS is.
[1] I'm not sure where it comes from and have never seen any survey/study to back it, but most of the industry seems to think it true.
Regardless of past experiences, we all (i.e., the computer industry) know who and what Google is now / today / recently. There is zero doubt of that profile. And yet how many can't even switch browsers? Or make recommendations that avoid the wrath of Google-zilla? They complain with words but are 100% complacent and complicit in their actions. We can't blame Google for that level of laziness.
True story: A few months ago I applied for a job. The hiring manager sent a link asking me to fill out a form, a Google form. They had it set up to require you be signed in to Google to see the form. I replied to the manager saying I don't have a Google account, nor do I want one. He sent to form questions via email. But I'm convinced he had no clue as to why anyone would want to avoid Google. When I said there are plenty of less offensive alternatives to Google and I sensed he didn't care.
I think most people wouldn't care. They're there to make money and feed their families, not wage a software holy war.
I'm sure you're not the only one he's met who doesn't like Google. He just doesn't care. It's nice that he bothered to send you the questions separately... some might've seen that as a yellow flag, like "I bet this candidate's gonna be a pain. Wonder what else they won't want us to use."
All I'm saying is you do you, but don't expect others to follow. There are plenty of evil companies in the world, and it's not like there's a clear moral superiority between Google, Apple, and Microsoft. They're not offensive to most people. They're just more banally evil companies in an ocean of even eviler companies. Tis life under capitalism.
And that's exactly the mindset set Google preys upon...short term vision, greed and convenience. Yes, agreed, most people don't know and don't care. However, we're not talking about most people. We're talking about people who due to their profession actually know better. Yet, they put themselves, their families, their friends, their customers, etc. in harm's way? Google is laughing...all the way to the bank.
I would suggest reading "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism."
I just don't think most people, myself included (even though I don't work for such a company) share these values. It's not that we don't know, it's just that we don't care. It's a tradeoff we're willing to make. So Google tracks everything and shows ads. So what? It's not really the big deal that privacy warriors make it out to be.
My biggest worry about Google is just that they've stopped innovating and are in rapid decline, enshittifying everything while also facing regulatory actions. It might not be around in its current form much longer. That scares me only because it's a huge PITA to have to move everything off of Gmail and GDrive and Android and Chrome and have to find replacements for every minor service they offer. Ugh. The privacy angle just gets a big shrug, as it does for millions of other users.
For every person I know who goes out of their way to de-googify their life (there's a couple), dozens of others just don't care at all. It's not what we spend brain time on.
Guess what, every company we interact with on a daily basis is out to exploit us and doesn't have our best interests at heart. The car companies and fossil fuel companies are actively killing us, the food growers use dangerous chemicals, Target and Costco sell us mass produced crap... shrug. It's not just surveillance capitalism, it's everyday capitalism.
Surveillance Capitalism is a very different beast. "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism" isn't just a great book, it might was well a dystopian novel. If you read it your "don't care" won't last long.
Would you like to summarize it, perhaps? I skimmed the wiki on it but it doesn't seem like anything particularly novel? Just the commercialization of personal data.
Maybe the full book has more substance, but it's not a subject I find all that interesting (hence the don't care).
This doesn't work. Appealing to people's emotions about monopolies or privacy does not work. This is a fact at this point; it has been tried repeatedly, and here we are.
Anyone who has been around for some time and tried hard to support multiple browsers in the past got burned out. Web developers want to develop; most don't want to be freedom fighters, and rightfully so.
The closer this is fixed at the source, the better chance it has to work. Unfortunately, the source seems to be outside the browser's engine internals and other interesting technical areas. I'd argue it's in the human/government sphere, where things are slow and require a lot of energy... who's willing to do that?
I'm a nerd. I like to work with technical things. I like to ignore humans and play with machines. None of that will fix the browser monopoly situation (or Firefox/Opera/Brave/etc wouldn't have single-digit market share [0]).
I use Firefox, have done for years. Maybe it doesn't work for you, but that's your choice to perpetrate a monopoly.
> Anyone who has been around for some time and tried hard to support multiple browsers in the past got burned out. Web developers want to develop; most don't want to be freedom fighters, and rightfully so.
Heard exactly the same thing from the Microsoft fanboys about IE6 15-20 years ago
You literally suggested Google forms are “offensive” to a hiring manager that initially wanted to use it to get some answers from you? I have a feeling that interaction might have been shared with his coworkers with some amusement.
Not really. What was offensive was the expectation of requiring to be logged in to a Google account. That's a slip up (?) I expect from my mom or dad. It's not something a hiring manager for a tech position should do. If they found that funny - Google being evil - then their sense of humor is as questionable as their IQ.
I think this summarise everything that is wrong with discussions on the web/ twitter or HN. Without knowing their age and experience, a lot of these context are completely missing.
What do you suggest as an alternative? Writing only Linux apps?
Chrome was to the web what Windows was to the desktop PC: It made writing mainstream apps with wide distribution practical. It's not like devs were held hostage. They saw an opportunity in this new platform and flocked to it because it was so good. Finally, a way to write an app and deliver it to users across devices, mostly unchanged. Write once (well, really more like 1.3x), run anywhere.
Chrome was a huge improvement over IE and by-then-bloated Firefox, and Gmail and Google Maps and Google Docs good early demonstrators of what the Web could be (yes, they bought many of those, but that's not too relevant here).
Web technologies were still an uncertain bet back in the day, competing against Java, ActiveX, Flash, and plain old PHP/Coldfusion/ASP apps, or even .NET and ClickOnce, etc. Chrome and V8 largely enabled the web and JS to slowly gain traction, alongside the growing ecosystem of JS libraries and frameworks.
The future, then as now, wasn't "FOSS GNU/Linux against Google's web". It was big company against big company. Even now, if it wasn't for the Web and Android, we'd simply have iOS supremacy instead of Windows.
Linux doesn't gain mainstream traction among normal users because its desktop experience is relatively poor, thanks to a historical focus on engineering prowess and ideology over end user UX. It only succeeds when big companies build on top of it and polish it a lot (Android, Steam Deck, Ubuntu, ChromeOS). That's not Google's fault, it's just what the Linux community prioritizes.
Even today, it's amazing that the Web is still largely visible source of HTML and React. And it's contributed to by a bunch of companies, from Meta to Vercel to Cloudflare to Amazon to Oracle to to tens of thousands of small businesses and NPM contributors. This is already vastly more open than iOS and Android apps, at least until WASM closes everything off again. And though Google has definitively won the browser wars, Blink and Webkit are still far more similar than any other two platforms. It's easier to develop for two browsers than even two Linux distros / package managers.
Is it shortsighted? I think it's just going where the users are. And the users are typically going to choose ease of use over strict ideology. This shit isn't their passion. They don't spend their days pondering the virtues and vices of operating systems and licenses. It's just a phone. And to most devs, it's just a platform.
People are practical creatures. They'll use and write apps where other people are. Ideology will never be enough to change that. Usability and popularity might.
> Blink and Webkit are still far more similar than any other two platforms. It's easier to develop for two browsers than even two Linux distros / package managers.
Given the EU digital market's act, this will deteriorate very quickly.
Seems a bit arrogant to say that as tech layoffs continue to happen and people still have trouble finding work, myself included. I never even worked for big tech or adtech and I've never seen the employment market this tough. Seems like a bad time to preach from a high horse. Just IMO.
I don't know why it doesn't work well in FF and I haven't tried troubleshooting it but I am not the only one who uses Chrome on Linux only for Netflix.
> And Safari only matters exactly because of the store.
> The day Chrome is allowed to replace Safari, it is over.
I keep seeing this rhetoric and it strikes me as missing the entire point. It tries to paint Safari as some kind of stalwart against the web's doom. It is part of the problem and perpetuates the very same problems we're accusing Chrome of. Two wrongs do not make a right here.
Indeed. And look at all of the good our saint Apple does for the open web: still can't use royalty-free codecs and support iPhone/iPad, still can't test Safari support without Apple devices (and trust me, you'll need to) and of course, WebGPU Shading Language.
My desire for royalty-free "open" codecs has nothing to do with that, though. I know it has a lot to do with why Google and Netflix care about royalty-free codecs, but it has nothing to do with why I do, or why I think they are very important to an open Internet.
This seems correct, but probably leaves most readers with the wrong impression. Theora is a codec that is free and open, and the patents that cover it do not encumber it (since they are also freely licensed), so I'd consider it patent unencumbered.
> So do you think it would be a good use of die space on a processor to support a substandard by today’s standard codec that was last used a decade ago?
There's a specific reason why Theora was last used a decade ago... Apple. Apple is the reason. There was some other opposition, but in 2009, Apple drove the hardest against Theora being included in the HTML5 spec, and they ultimately won, leaving us with no standard codec everyone could actually agree on. Because the web is supposed to be open, and h264 is not.
It being excluded from the spec, you could not rely on Theora support in the browser.
> It is a complete non starter for Apple or any mobile device maker to build in support for a non hardware optimized codec on a mobile device.
Given that a RPi 5 takes less than a full core to decode h264, I'm not even sure this is a real concern. In my tests, ogv.js is able to decode VP9 at modern resolutions on an iPad without even really making the device warm; it's undoutedly inefficient, but the fact that it can even be done using WebAssembly gives me a feeling that this isn't really the huge problem it's made out to be.
For Theora... I mean. It's just not an issue. You can just do it in software. Maybe not in 2009, but certainly today, right now, on any hardware made in the past few years, on one core, without even driving the clocks up.
For AV1, yes, sure, this is a real issue; but Apple has been a part of the AOM for years, so I have no idea why they are building machines without hardware AV1 acceleration today. That's a question that only Apple can answer, given that it has real adoption already.
> How does that benefit users besides the ones who bemoan not being able to run Linux on the Apple Pencil?
Yes sure, let's take a random unrelated detour to make fun of tinkerers who like to be able to reads notes run their own software on hardware they purchased. I'm disappointed, although unfortunately not surprised at all.
> There's a specific reason why Theora was last used a decade ago... Apple. Apple is the reason
The last stable release was in 2009. The iPhone was still a bit player then, only available via a few carriers and still behind RIM in market share. No one cared about Apple’s opinion in 2009.
> For AV1, yes, sure, this is a real issue; but Apple has been a part of the AOM for years, so I have no idea why they are building machines without hardware AV1 acceleration today. That's a question that only Apple can answer, given that it has real adoption already.
> Yes sure, let's take a random unrelated detour to make fun of tinkerers who like to be able to reads notes run their own software on hardware they purchased. I'm disappointed, although unfortunately not surprised at all.
How is not supporting an “open standard” stopping anyone from “tinkering”? There are open source implementations of the encoders and they will be decoded in hardware once you install whatever you are tinkering with on your phone.
Patent-unencumbered is the term that I should've probably used, but as you will see in the neighboring reply, there is no reason to believe anyone would pull on this thread in good faith. This sucks, because I'd rather assume good faith, but.
I strongly, strongly dislike what you are doing. You know exactly what I mean when I say it, but are pretending not to, even explicitly suggesting 'ah, just because the codec's open source doesn't mean it's not patent encumbered' without explicitly saying what you really want to say, just for the sake of allowing me to activate a "trap card" wherein I say "Ahh, no, I don't mean like x264, I mean like VP9!" and then you can flip around and say "Ah HAH! Actually, VP9 ISN'T patent-unencumbered: check out all of this propaganda from a literal patent cartel about how if you use VP9, they will bust your ass sideways, unless you license it using their patent pool!"
And I don't care. I'll care when Wikipedia gets sued for using Opus, or AV1, or when Mozilla gets sued for shipping it in their browser, or something. Until then, as far as I'm concerned, it's empty threats from dog shit liars.
But this aside, I don't understand why you can't just say what you mean right out the gates since I know you know what I am talking about, I know you knew from reply 1, and I'm sure you've already played through this conversation before. I could've said Theora, Quite OK Audio or perhaps even MPEG Layer 3 just to fuck around, but I really would like to have an honest conversation, and not just mess around with technicalities.
I'm not interested in debating the legal system, or how AOM's license agreement works, or any of that crap. In practice, almost everyone can use "open", patent-unencumbered codecs without fear of lawsuits. The companies big enough to have to worry about patent lawsuits virtually no matter what have basically been using patent agreements as a weapon against the traditional patent cartels. This is of course, deeply unfortunate, since it just perpetuates the terribly broken U.S. patent system and the situation it has with video codecs.
I understand that you have Opinions:tm: regarding this, I already caught on. But what you have to understand is that to most people, including plenty of lawyers, these opinions are essentially fringe. If they weren't, AV1 wouldn't be shipping in Firefox and Wikipedia wouldn't be using them. And not only that, it has nothing to do with the concept of patent-unencumbered codecs. There's always going to be codecs where the known patents have simply expired. At least in the U.S., I'm pretty sure that even includes MPEG2, but it'd suck if open source software was limited to just MPEG2. (And of course, if we do find new patents not covered under previous patent pools, that happen to apply, you have to realize that this liability existed for everyone already, including people who paid royalties anyways.)
I mean that if I’m a business the size of Netflix, I very much care about the difference between “patent encumbered with an open source” implementation and “patent unencumbered”. In the first case, a patent troll can come after me.
On the other hand, if I use H.264 as a large business and I choose to modify the open source implementation and pay the royalties, I’m mostly covered.
Theora was last updated over a decade ago and currently no processor has built in support for it making it a non startee on mobile devices where battery life is at a premium.
And if AV1 meets your definition of “open” why are you complaining about Apple not supporting an “open codec” since Safari supports AV1?
While you may not be interested in talking about the legal system, I can guarantee you that every major company is before they re-encode their library using a codec or add die to the chip to optimize decoding.
Big companies can’t use their patents against small patent trolls who are just holding companies built just to sue large companies.
In other words, it is financially dumb for any large company to support an “open” protocol based on 20 year old technology (when patents expire) or newer supposed “open” codecs that are just as patent encumbered.
I said iPhone/iPad not Safari. The difference is imperative, since Safari on iOS does NOT support AV1. I have a fully patched iPad, I'm absolutely 100% certain.
Anyway, if it's good enough for Mozilla and Wikipedia and thousands of smaller companies, it's good enough for me. You do you.
> The WebKit blog provided more information about Safari 17.0, confirming support for the AV1 video codec was added on devices with hardware decoding support
And if you don’t believe the blog, maybe you believe the caniuse site.
- Only iPhone 15 Pro? not even an iPhone 15? This means almost nothing. You can't just be like, "Oh my site only works on every device except iPhones except iPhone 15 Pro.
- Still no Opus...
I will fully admit that I am out of date on this, by like a couple months. But the reason why I say it like this is because people have been making this claim for years even though it has apparently been true for like two months. Apple is half-assing this every step of the way. It will be like, 2025 before a site can just use AV1 without needing multiple encodings, and at that point you probably still won't be able to use Opus.
Because only the iPhone 15 Pto series chip has hardware decoding support for AV1. You’ve had to have code for fallback support for other codecs for years.
And let’s not pretend it’s been available for Android forever. Chrome for Android just received support for AV1 last month as did Firefox for Android.
for the Raspberry Pi, they made paying for the codecs optional. So you had the option to purchase a separate license just for that single device you buy.
Apple delaying the progress of "web" (or just another kind of app) is good for users. Because user don't need another OS between the host os and their apps.
Web developers are so self-centered. You are developers, not users, don't speak like you are doing good things for users. You are just doing things for yourselves so you can extract money/data from your users.
Most web developers nowadays are just enemy of web users.
> Apple delaying the progress of "web" (or just another kind of app) is good for users. Because user don't need another OS between the host os and their apps.
It's categorically not good for the consumer. It's good for the small enterprise companies/upstarts that don't have the budget to keep iterating their software, which would otherwise be left in the dust quiet quickly. With apple holding it back, they've got a bigger timeframe in which their software doesn't behave as a legacy application, as everyone Else is forced to use subpar features too.
From the users perspective it is - just as they said - worse, as things like codec support improve battery life and playback quality for example.
small enterprise companies/upstarts can design their apps more like the traditional dynamic web site. For 95% use case that's good enough. And for the rest 5% case that requires a heavy web "app", you will find out that it's usually not what a small company can do. It's more likely uber or starbuck or facebook or google or microsoft.
I'm surprised that this comment gets slightly more upvotes. I want to clarify one thing: I'm not saying apple is the good guy. Apple and google are 2 monster companies. As a user I want them to fight. That's the only way we can reduce the harm done by these monster companies.
However web developers go one side: the google side. Reason? They can do half the work and get twice the money. What a gain! They sell the web to google for their dirty money.
Yeah they're not doing what you think they are either. They're just making it worse, not preventing it from becoming horribly bloated. In fact, the WGSL thing unilaterally increased the complexity of an already-complex standard (and made it slower, since now it needs to lex/parse text for what could've been bytecode.) It'd be one thing if they took a stand against WebGPU, but no, it was some self-centered IP garbage as usual.
I rather have Apple do their stuff, than update my CV to state ChromeOS instead of Web.
It also helps that I left my FOSS zealot stuff, writing emails with M$ on the signature, around 2000.
And as someone with telecom experience, the stores were definitely much better than the operator shops buying stuff via SMS, with the applications listed on magazines.
> Google offered to make Netflix a “platform development partner” under a program it called “LRAP++”,
See, it's not a corporate deal happening behind the scenes. Don't call it a sweetheart deal, it's just a program. It's just a general pricing tier that Google was spinning up. /s
> “Netflix is the only one this is being offered to at this point,” the document continued.
You know, one of those "programs" that we happen to offer to exactly one company and only if we think there's a chance they have the ability to walk away.
For companies with massive cultural recognition and trust and product awareness (Netflix, Microsoft, Spotify, etc.), you don't need the app store for discovery or for security.
(Although security is debatable -- e.g. recall the Sony rootkit scandal. I'm still not sure I'd trust a Sony app unless it was vetted by an app store and sandboxed.)
But for 99.9% of the apps out there, this is not the case. The app store provides a lot of value in terms of discovery, security, and distribution. It doesn't do a perfect job, but that doesn't mean it's a "predatory racket".
It’s not like well known companies like Google and Facebook convinced consumer to install supposedly internal certificates on their devices to track everything they did on their iPhones or that Zoom installed a backdoor web server on Macs.
Nobody needs the appstore for discovery and security, security is done by the OS and the discovery is done by external channels, the store discovery is close to worthless anyways.
But I mean, why shouldn't a huge company like Netflix be offered more favorable terms due to the scale and business opportunity they offer? Similarly, Stripe offers lower transaction fees the more transactions you do.
Of course Google offers sweetheart deals for big accounts, it would be odd if they didn't. Google doesn't want to explicit about cutting into their 30% take, because everyone would want an exemption, so they offer remittances in other ways, giving them more discretion as to when the money spigot is on or off.
Google is being sued though? The whole reason we have this story is because the documents were revealed during discovery in the Epic vs Google lawsuit alleging monopolistic practices by the Google app store.
It's often allowed if it's not purely a digital product or subscription, otherwise you have to at least also offer in-app purchases; you can still sell outside of the app.
Neither Netflix, Spotify, Hulu Live TV or YouTube TV offer in app subscriptions. It hasn’t been required for “reader apps” (strange name I know) for over a decade.
That you can't tell me a single location kinda proves my point, doesn't it?
"on the internet" to me seems equivalent to "you could always open a stand somewhere on the side of a dusty road and sell your consumer goods there"...
That would actually be rather unexpected news given Walmart and retails reputation. Far more likely breaking news is Walmart pushes down coke margins while pushing prices up and launching a store brand soda to compete
So? The implication here seems to be that there's something wrong with offering a client a deal. Is it assumed that Google Play is a monopoly, and thus subject to some rules of "fairness" from public policy? But Netflix is a counterargument to Play being a monopoly...
It's more that the article said "10% cut with Google would mean we would be losing money", yet they took the 15% deal from Apple. They could have done the same thing with Apple that they did with Google I think? Unless Apple threatened to delist them (though that would be another can of worms...)
Probably because they assume android users to be more technically capable, and thus think that they can use a browser to pay rather than using the App Store?
Well, we don’t need anecdotes - we have real world statistics in every major market in the world that the household income of an iPhone user is higher then that of an Android user.
Statistically less well educated might be relevant, income? Not so much. Unless you want to imply here that there's a link between lower income and lower technical expertise in using phone operating systems.
I would imagine that simply the fact that you're on Android brings a bit more technical challenges to the table, which users will deal with. Anyone that has used both operating systems has experienced this. Apple tends to simplify and hide a lot of complexity on a lot of things for their users which limits what you can do but increases the ease of use in a lot of basic things.
So I would say people who use Android are probably more used to overcoming these sort of hurdles than iPhone users might be. To an iPhone user, you might have to teach, to an Android user it's more of a reminder as they've probably already encountered something similar before.
Isn't the real message here that payment, app-delivery, and app validation should all be available unbundled? Sure, it's a convenience for them all to be handled by Play, but what are we really asking our lawmakers to do?
I don't actually want that, though, as a user. Apple has my payment info, so I don't need to share it with however many entities. They're a known entity that I reasonably trust to prevent malware making it onto my phone. I only need to go to one place to find apps for the platform.
I like the App Store model. I understand that it presents problems for developers, and while I sympathize, I ultimately don't care about how it affects them enough to give up what I perceive as the benefits of the current system.
I worked for Google Play at this time. Was interesting.
Note that the significant thing is not really the 10% deal but the fact that Netflix has to stop using their own in-app payment system with 3% fees (a rule Google Play previously did not enforce for them).
(I'm still at Google, so that's all I'll add about an ongoing legal case with my employer)
I don't have any subscriptions that go through Google Play, but I hugely appreciate how easy they make it to cancel subscriptions and handle trial subscriptions correctly. I'm able to sign-up, immediately cancel, but still use the service for the duration of the trial with no risk of it auto-renewing on me.
Same reason I'm of two minds about Amazon. I disagree with a lot of their practices, but the first time I bought something from a 3rd party Amazon seller, they shipped it to the wrong address (there was a picture of the package clearly in front of the wrong building) and refused to refund due to "it shows delivered". The seller wanted me to "ask my neighbors". The buildings around me have hundreds of people per building. Then told me it was my problem to take up with the shipping company, saying I'd need a police report, all of that. All for a pair of shoes. I went into the Amazon support chat and they refunded it after the seller didn't respond to them in a timely matter (big surprise). That experience has soured me a bit on going outside the "main channels". Had I purchased that from that seller directly through their website, I'd have either spent hours of time proving to them that I never got the product, have to just eat the money, or deal with the back-and-forth of proving to my CC company that it warrants a chargeback.
129 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 180 ms ] threadie., Google's attorney confirms the app-store model is a predatory racket
Netflix Web app is best viewed on Chrome anyway.
And Safari only matters exactly because of the store.
The day Chrome is allowed to replace Safari, it is over.
I can't believe how shortsighted most developers are. Don't build your castle in someone else's kingdom, etc. Because in the long run it hurts almost everybody and yourself included. This holds for the entire platform economy. If you think government regulation is bad, then wait until you see a market regulated by a platform owner.
Related: The Quest for Netflix on Asahi Linux – https://www.da.vidbuchanan.co.uk/blog/netflix-on-asahi.html
Chrome isn't what's holding higher resolution Netflix back on Linux, it's the lack of a signed graphics driver by an authority that would revoke anything that didn't enforce the DRM and pushes the decryption to trusted hardware.
[1] I'm not sure where it comes from and have never seen any survey/study to back it, but most of the industry seems to think it true.
True story: A few months ago I applied for a job. The hiring manager sent a link asking me to fill out a form, a Google form. They had it set up to require you be signed in to Google to see the form. I replied to the manager saying I don't have a Google account, nor do I want one. He sent to form questions via email. But I'm convinced he had no clue as to why anyone would want to avoid Google. When I said there are plenty of less offensive alternatives to Google and I sensed he didn't care.
I'm sure you're not the only one he's met who doesn't like Google. He just doesn't care. It's nice that he bothered to send you the questions separately... some might've seen that as a yellow flag, like "I bet this candidate's gonna be a pain. Wonder what else they won't want us to use."
All I'm saying is you do you, but don't expect others to follow. There are plenty of evil companies in the world, and it's not like there's a clear moral superiority between Google, Apple, and Microsoft. They're not offensive to most people. They're just more banally evil companies in an ocean of even eviler companies. Tis life under capitalism.
I would suggest reading "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism."
My biggest worry about Google is just that they've stopped innovating and are in rapid decline, enshittifying everything while also facing regulatory actions. It might not be around in its current form much longer. That scares me only because it's a huge PITA to have to move everything off of Gmail and GDrive and Android and Chrome and have to find replacements for every minor service they offer. Ugh. The privacy angle just gets a big shrug, as it does for millions of other users.
For every person I know who goes out of their way to de-googify their life (there's a couple), dozens of others just don't care at all. It's not what we spend brain time on.
Guess what, every company we interact with on a daily basis is out to exploit us and doesn't have our best interests at heart. The car companies and fossil fuel companies are actively killing us, the food growers use dangerous chemicals, Target and Costco sell us mass produced crap... shrug. It's not just surveillance capitalism, it's everyday capitalism.
Maybe the full book has more substance, but it's not a subject I find all that interesting (hence the don't care).
Fortunately 30 years ago people didn't have that view, and that's why we have things like the web and Linux.
Alas nobody cares about freedom now.
This doesn't work. Appealing to people's emotions about monopolies or privacy does not work. This is a fact at this point; it has been tried repeatedly, and here we are.
Anyone who has been around for some time and tried hard to support multiple browsers in the past got burned out. Web developers want to develop; most don't want to be freedom fighters, and rightfully so.
The closer this is fixed at the source, the better chance it has to work. Unfortunately, the source seems to be outside the browser's engine internals and other interesting technical areas. I'd argue it's in the human/government sphere, where things are slow and require a lot of energy... who's willing to do that?
I'm a nerd. I like to work with technical things. I like to ignore humans and play with machines. None of that will fix the browser monopoly situation (or Firefox/Opera/Brave/etc wouldn't have single-digit market share [0]).
0 - https://kinsta.com/browser-market-share/
> Anyone who has been around for some time and tried hard to support multiple browsers in the past got burned out. Web developers want to develop; most don't want to be freedom fighters, and rightfully so.
Heard exactly the same thing from the Microsoft fanboys about IE6 15-20 years ago
Chrome was to the web what Windows was to the desktop PC: It made writing mainstream apps with wide distribution practical. It's not like devs were held hostage. They saw an opportunity in this new platform and flocked to it because it was so good. Finally, a way to write an app and deliver it to users across devices, mostly unchanged. Write once (well, really more like 1.3x), run anywhere.
Chrome was a huge improvement over IE and by-then-bloated Firefox, and Gmail and Google Maps and Google Docs good early demonstrators of what the Web could be (yes, they bought many of those, but that's not too relevant here).
Web technologies were still an uncertain bet back in the day, competing against Java, ActiveX, Flash, and plain old PHP/Coldfusion/ASP apps, or even .NET and ClickOnce, etc. Chrome and V8 largely enabled the web and JS to slowly gain traction, alongside the growing ecosystem of JS libraries and frameworks.
The future, then as now, wasn't "FOSS GNU/Linux against Google's web". It was big company against big company. Even now, if it wasn't for the Web and Android, we'd simply have iOS supremacy instead of Windows.
Linux doesn't gain mainstream traction among normal users because its desktop experience is relatively poor, thanks to a historical focus on engineering prowess and ideology over end user UX. It only succeeds when big companies build on top of it and polish it a lot (Android, Steam Deck, Ubuntu, ChromeOS). That's not Google's fault, it's just what the Linux community prioritizes.
Even today, it's amazing that the Web is still largely visible source of HTML and React. And it's contributed to by a bunch of companies, from Meta to Vercel to Cloudflare to Amazon to Oracle to to tens of thousands of small businesses and NPM contributors. This is already vastly more open than iOS and Android apps, at least until WASM closes everything off again. And though Google has definitively won the browser wars, Blink and Webkit are still far more similar than any other two platforms. It's easier to develop for two browsers than even two Linux distros / package managers.
Is it shortsighted? I think it's just going where the users are. And the users are typically going to choose ease of use over strict ideology. This shit isn't their passion. They don't spend their days pondering the virtues and vices of operating systems and licenses. It's just a phone. And to most devs, it's just a platform.
People are practical creatures. They'll use and write apps where other people are. Ideology will never be enough to change that. Usability and popularity might.
Given the EU digital market's act, this will deteriorate very quickly.
Wild claim.
Netflix computer requirements for HTML5 player: https://help.netflix.com/en/node/23742
I keep seeing this rhetoric and it strikes me as missing the entire point. It tries to paint Safari as some kind of stalwart against the web's doom. It is part of the problem and perpetuates the very same problems we're accusing Chrome of. Two wrongs do not make a right here.
Case in point, consider Wikipedia.
https://www.forbesindia.com/amp/article/explainers/top-10-la...
https://www.theora.org/benefits/
It is a complete non starter for Apple or any mobile device maker to build in support for a non hardware optimized codec on a mobile device.
How does that benefit users besides the ones who bemoan not being able to run Linux on the Apple Pencil?
There's a specific reason why Theora was last used a decade ago... Apple. Apple is the reason. There was some other opposition, but in 2009, Apple drove the hardest against Theora being included in the HTML5 spec, and they ultimately won, leaving us with no standard codec everyone could actually agree on. Because the web is supposed to be open, and h264 is not.
It being excluded from the spec, you could not rely on Theora support in the browser.
> It is a complete non starter for Apple or any mobile device maker to build in support for a non hardware optimized codec on a mobile device.
Given that a RPi 5 takes less than a full core to decode h264, I'm not even sure this is a real concern. In my tests, ogv.js is able to decode VP9 at modern resolutions on an iPad without even really making the device warm; it's undoutedly inefficient, but the fact that it can even be done using WebAssembly gives me a feeling that this isn't really the huge problem it's made out to be.
For Theora... I mean. It's just not an issue. You can just do it in software. Maybe not in 2009, but certainly today, right now, on any hardware made in the past few years, on one core, without even driving the clocks up.
For AV1, yes, sure, this is a real issue; but Apple has been a part of the AOM for years, so I have no idea why they are building machines without hardware AV1 acceleration today. That's a question that only Apple can answer, given that it has real adoption already.
> How does that benefit users besides the ones who bemoan not being able to run Linux on the Apple Pencil?
Yes sure, let's take a random unrelated detour to make fun of tinkerers who like to be able to reads notes run their own software on hardware they purchased. I'm disappointed, although unfortunately not surprised at all.
The last stable release was in 2009. The iPhone was still a bit player then, only available via a few carriers and still behind RIM in market share. No one cared about Apple’s opinion in 2009.
> For AV1, yes, sure, this is a real issue; but Apple has been a part of the AOM for years, so I have no idea why they are building machines without hardware AV1 acceleration today. That's a question that only Apple can answer, given that it has real adoption already.
https://bitmovin.com/av1-playback-support
> Yes sure, let's take a random unrelated detour to make fun of tinkerers who like to be able to reads notes run their own software on hardware they purchased. I'm disappointed, although unfortunately not surprised at all.
How is not supporting an “open standard” stopping anyone from “tinkering”? There are open source implementations of the encoders and they will be decoded in hardware once you install whatever you are tinkering with on your phone.
And “Words Mean Things”. There is a huge difference between “open source implementations” and “patent unencumbered” codecs
And I don't care. I'll care when Wikipedia gets sued for using Opus, or AV1, or when Mozilla gets sued for shipping it in their browser, or something. Until then, as far as I'm concerned, it's empty threats from dog shit liars.
But this aside, I don't understand why you can't just say what you mean right out the gates since I know you know what I am talking about, I know you knew from reply 1, and I'm sure you've already played through this conversation before. I could've said Theora, Quite OK Audio or perhaps even MPEG Layer 3 just to fuck around, but I really would like to have an honest conversation, and not just mess around with technicalities.
I'm not interested in debating the legal system, or how AOM's license agreement works, or any of that crap. In practice, almost everyone can use "open", patent-unencumbered codecs without fear of lawsuits. The companies big enough to have to worry about patent lawsuits virtually no matter what have basically been using patent agreements as a weapon against the traditional patent cartels. This is of course, deeply unfortunate, since it just perpetuates the terribly broken U.S. patent system and the situation it has with video codecs.
I understand that you have Opinions:tm: regarding this, I already caught on. But what you have to understand is that to most people, including plenty of lawyers, these opinions are essentially fringe. If they weren't, AV1 wouldn't be shipping in Firefox and Wikipedia wouldn't be using them. And not only that, it has nothing to do with the concept of patent-unencumbered codecs. There's always going to be codecs where the known patents have simply expired. At least in the U.S., I'm pretty sure that even includes MPEG2, but it'd suck if open source software was limited to just MPEG2. (And of course, if we do find new patents not covered under previous patent pools, that happen to apply, you have to realize that this liability existed for everyone already, including people who paid royalties anyways.)
On the other hand, if I use H.264 as a large business and I choose to modify the open source implementation and pay the royalties, I’m mostly covered.
Theora was last updated over a decade ago and currently no processor has built in support for it making it a non startee on mobile devices where battery life is at a premium.
And if AV1 meets your definition of “open” why are you complaining about Apple not supporting an “open codec” since Safari supports AV1?
While you may not be interested in talking about the legal system, I can guarantee you that every major company is before they re-encode their library using a codec or add die to the chip to optimize decoding.
Big companies can’t use their patents against small patent trolls who are just holding companies built just to sue large companies.
In other words, it is financially dumb for any large company to support an “open” protocol based on 20 year old technology (when patents expire) or newer supposed “open” codecs that are just as patent encumbered.
Anyway, if it's good enough for Mozilla and Wikipedia and thousands of smaller companies, it's good enough for me. You do you.
https://bitmovin.com/apple-av1-support/
> The WebKit blog provided more information about Safari 17.0, confirming support for the AV1 video codec was added on devices with hardware decoding support
And if you don’t believe the blog, maybe you believe the caniuse site.
https://caniuse.com/av1
- Only iPhone 15 Pro? not even an iPhone 15? This means almost nothing. You can't just be like, "Oh my site only works on every device except iPhones except iPhone 15 Pro.
- Still no Opus...
I will fully admit that I am out of date on this, by like a couple months. But the reason why I say it like this is because people have been making this claim for years even though it has apparently been true for like two months. Apple is half-assing this every step of the way. It will be like, 2025 before a site can just use AV1 without needing multiple encodings, and at that point you probably still won't be able to use Opus.
Thanks, Apple?
And let’s not pretend it’s been available for Android forever. Chrome for Android just received support for AV1 last month as did Firefox for Android.
And Opus support has been around since iOS 11
https://caniuse.com/opus
Web developers are so self-centered. You are developers, not users, don't speak like you are doing good things for users. You are just doing things for yourselves so you can extract money/data from your users.
Most web developers nowadays are just enemy of web users.
It's categorically not good for the consumer. It's good for the small enterprise companies/upstarts that don't have the budget to keep iterating their software, which would otherwise be left in the dust quiet quickly. With apple holding it back, they've got a bigger timeframe in which their software doesn't behave as a legacy application, as everyone Else is forced to use subpar features too.
From the users perspective it is - just as they said - worse, as things like codec support improve battery life and playback quality for example.
However web developers go one side: the google side. Reason? They can do half the work and get twice the money. What a gain! They sell the web to google for their dirty money.
It also helps that I left my FOSS zealot stuff, writing emails with M$ on the signature, around 2000.
And as someone with telecom experience, the stores were definitely much better than the operator shops buying stuff via SMS, with the applications listed on magazines.
The other streaming services are very clunky but they are also bad on Chrome.
So it is a matter of luck if someone at Netflix still cares to test on it.
Literally no it isn't. It gets higher resolution content and HDR in Edge and Safari.
(Although Netflix do not support browser access on mobile at all.)
See, it's not a corporate deal happening behind the scenes. Don't call it a sweetheart deal, it's just a program. It's just a general pricing tier that Google was spinning up. /s
> “Netflix is the only one this is being offered to at this point,” the document continued.
You know, one of those "programs" that we happen to offer to exactly one company and only if we think there's a chance they have the ability to walk away.
For companies with massive cultural recognition and trust and product awareness (Netflix, Microsoft, Spotify, etc.), you don't need the app store for discovery or for security.
(Although security is debatable -- e.g. recall the Sony rootkit scandal. I'm still not sure I'd trust a Sony app unless it was vetted by an app store and sandboxed.)
But for 99.9% of the apps out there, this is not the case. The app store provides a lot of value in terms of discovery, security, and distribution. It doesn't do a perfect job, but that doesn't mean it's a "predatory racket".
For supermarkets there is some competition. I mean Walmart doesn't even operate in the country I am located.
See the difference?
Like you can sell your consumer goods at Target, Costco, Kroger, Albertsons, Publix, Meijer, or just in another country.
Where do you sell your android app?
"on the internet" to me seems equivalent to "you could always open a stand somewhere on the side of a dusty road and sell your consumer goods there"...
You can run your website from a dusty road and I can get there in a few hundred milliseconds.
I am asking once more:
If you don't have Google play, where do you sell your android app?
I would imagine that simply the fact that you're on Android brings a bit more technical challenges to the table, which users will deal with. Anyone that has used both operating systems has experienced this. Apple tends to simplify and hide a lot of complexity on a lot of things for their users which limits what you can do but increases the ease of use in a lot of basic things.
So I would say people who use Android are probably more used to overcoming these sort of hurdles than iPhone users might be. To an iPhone user, you might have to teach, to an Android user it's more of a reminder as they've probably already encountered something similar before.
Anecdotally, how well did Epic do when they tried to encourage Android users to side load Fortnite?
I like the App Store model. I understand that it presents problems for developers, and while I sympathize, I ultimately don't care about how it affects them enough to give up what I perceive as the benefits of the current system.
I also use an iPhone. I would simply not use an app if it’s on a store that’s painful to maintain.
I bet AWS also has a secret deal with Netflix where they don’t have to pay retail prices. (Note sarcasm of course Netflix doesn’t pay retail).
Note that the significant thing is not really the 10% deal but the fact that Netflix has to stop using their own in-app payment system with 3% fees (a rule Google Play previously did not enforce for them).
(I'm still at Google, so that's all I'll add about an ongoing legal case with my employer)
Or, for 5% of Netflix's revenue on Android, I'll serve APKs, and let Netflix use their preferred payments service.