Google Has Made YouTube Slower on Edge and Firefox, Mozilla Alleges (neowin.net)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Has Made YouTube Slower on Edge and Firefox, Mozilla Alleges (neowin.net)

Posted by msmash on Wednesday July 25, 2018 @02:00AM from the interesting-insights dept.

Usama Jawad, writing for Neowin: Early last year, YouTube received a design refresh with Google's own Polymer library which enabled "quicker feature development" for the platform. Now, a Mozilla executive is claiming that Google has made YouTube slower on Edge and Firefox by using this framework. In a thread on Twitter, Mozilla's Technical Program Manager has stated that YouTube's Polymer redesign relies heavily on the deprecated Shadow DOM v0 API, which is only available in Chrome. This in turn makes the site around five times slower on competing browsers such as Microsoft Edge and Mozilla Firefox. Further reading: Safari Users Unable to Play Newer 4K Video On YouTube in Native Resolution.

76 of 145 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Chrome is the new IE 6 by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-25 02:01 · Score: 5, Funny

Long live IE6
1. Re:Chrome is the new IE 6 by The+Original+CDR · 2018-07-25 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  No kidding. My company's IT department is supporting Chrome for a cloud-based help desk system AND Internet Explorer for everything else.
2. Re: Chrome is the new IE 6 by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-25 03:03 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  But it sure made it easy to install some for you!
3. Re:Chrome is the new IE 6 by hcs_$reboot · 2018-07-25 03:16 · Score: 1, Redundant
  
  Nope, don't think so. IE6 was an arrogant and conceited browser implementation from Microsoft that totally disregarded any standard and overlooked whatever critic. Chrome has some extra internals that might be used by a web site [detecting Chrome] but it respects the CSS standards, meaning you can still make a page using only the standard CSS that will load nicely in Chrome. In IE6 that was not possible.
  
  --
  Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
4. Re:Chrome is the new IE 6 by Opportunist · 2018-07-25 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  When they start being as obnoxious to support, watch me drop support for Chrome.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
5. Re:Chrome is the new IE 6 by KiloByte · 2018-07-25 04:33 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Well, one thing IE6 wasn't: Spyware.
  IE was wide open to spyware, but technology marches on: Chrome has it integrated!
  
  --
  The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
6. Re:Chrome is the new IE 6 by KiloByte · 2018-07-25 04:37 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Please read the summary: YouTube uses something that has never been a standard, it was merely a basis for a prepared standard. Think of Microsoft Office vs what they submitted as OOXML.
  
  --
  The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
7. Re:Chrome is the new IE 6 by Bert64 · 2018-07-25 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  Which is exactly what IE6 did... It encouraged you to use the non standard APIs, thus rendering sites incompatible with other browsers.
  
  --
  http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
8. Re:Chrome is the new IE 6 by Tony+Isaac · 2018-07-25 15:19 · Score: 1
  
  Good analogy, but there are two critical differences:
  1. Google continues to develop Chrome (IE6 stayed stagnant for a long time)
  2. New versions of Chrome don't break your Web site like new versions of IE.
9. Re:Chrome is the new IE 6 by hcs_$reboot · 2018-07-25 16:10 · Score: 1
  
  Which is exactly what IE6 did...
  No, ie6 gave the user no choice. Devs had to develop specific (i.e. not standard) otherwise their pages would look bad. At least Chrome renders standard code pages OK.
  
  --
  Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
10. Re:Chrome is the new IE 6 by Bert64 · 2018-07-26 00:26 · Score: 1
  
  It implemented standards around at the time just as badly as competing browsers (ie netscape 4.x) did...
  
  --
  http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Just part of their war on... everyone by drinkypoo · 2018-07-25 02:06 · Score: 5, Informative

This is what happens when any corporation gets into too many supporting markets. That situation rewards anticompetitive behavior. Google has every incentive to use Youtube to prop up Chrome, and vice versa. They have become Microsoft.
Remember when Google declared that Amazon Fire TV users would no longer be able to use an app to access their site, because rea$ons? Well, that's still the state of affairs. You have to use a browser instead of an App because Amazon won't carry Google's devices in their web store. Well, Google doesn't carry Amazon's devices in their web store, either. How on earth is this not anticompetitive?
While I'd like to see Google held accountable for their anticompetitive behavior, the best solution is still for someone else to spin up a video streaming site. There's enough people who want an alternative to Youtube for it to work out. But it has to be at least as friendly to uploaders as Youtube...

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
1. Re:Just part of their war on... everyone by Cinnamon+Beige · 2018-07-25 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  While I'd like to see Google held accountable for their anticompetitive behavior, the best solution is still for someone else to spin up a video streaming site. There's enough people who want an alternative to Youtube for it to work out. But it has to be at least as friendly to uploaders as Youtube...
  They're steadily working on making that an easier hurdle to clear.
2. Re:Just part of their war on... everyone by swilver · 2018-07-25 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  Brilliant idea. I'll get some servers and spin up a YouTube replacement, give me a couple.
3. Re:Just part of their war on... everyone by drinkypoo · 2018-07-25 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  Brilliant idea. I'll get some servers and spin up a YouTube replacement, give me a couple.
  When I say "someone" above, I obviously mean "some corporation". To me, the obvious candidate is Amazon. Youtube was viable for Google because they were already sitting on a gigantic cluster, and already had massive brand recognition. Ditto Amazon.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
4. Re:Just part of their war on... everyone by Luthair · 2018-07-25 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  Remember when Google declared that Amazon Fire TV users would no longer be able to use an app to access their site, because rea$ons? Well, that's still the state of affairs. You have to use a browser instead of an App because Amazon won't carry Google's devices in their web store.
  That is an interesting retcon, Amazon decided they didn't need to follow the Youtube API's licensing agreement when they implemented their Fire TV application. Amazon's anti-competitive store behaviour certainly didn't engender them to Google but Google has similarly kicked off other companies, see also Microsoft when they violated the Youtube terms.
5. Re:Just part of their war on... everyone by drinkypoo · 2018-07-25 03:20 · Score: 2
  
  Amazon decided they didn't need to follow the Youtube API's licensing agreement
  That licensing agreement was created specifically for anticompetitive purposes. Amazon wasn't interfering with Youtube's revenue-generating abilities in any way, since they were showing the ad content.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
6. Re:Just part of their war on... everyone by Merk42 · 2018-07-25 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  Remember when Google declared that Amazon Fire TV users would no longer be able to use an app to access their site, because rea$ons?
  The "rea$ons" being Amazon's anti-competitve behavior?
  
  Well, Google doesn't carry Amazon's devices in their web store, either. How on earth is this not anticompetitive?
  Because the Google Store only carries products made by Google, (or Nest, a subsidiary of its parent company, or at one point hardware that was made by other OEMs, but than ran a Google OS such as Android or ChromeOS). Amazon, however, makes it a point to try and carry everything and they even did carry the Chromecast when it first appeared.
  
  While I'd like to see Google held accountable for their anticompetitive behavior, the best solution is still for someone else to spin up a video streaming site. There's enough people who want an alternative to Youtube for it to work out. But it has to be at least as friendly to uploaders as Youtube...
  Yeah Amazon should be held accountable too, I mean, how hard is it to make an ecommerce at the same scale???
7. Re:Just part of their war on... everyone by Opportunist · 2018-07-25 03:48 · Score: 2
  
  And given the whole demonetization-bullshit flying low on YouTube right now, this just might be the right time to do it. Quite a few content creators are desperately looking for alternative places that let them get a cut of the ad money, if Amazon played its cards well, now is the right moment to do so.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
8. Re:Just part of their war on... everyone by BronsCon · 2018-07-25 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  How on earth is this not anticompetitive?
  Both parties had devices and in each others' stores, putting them on equal footing. That means that, when Amazon removed Google's devices, Google had a matching competitive move (which they took): remove Amazon's devices from their marketplace.
  
  Absent that equal footing, it absolutely would by anti-competitive; but, given the similar posture of the two competitors, this is simply them mutually agreeing not to help each other compete.
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
9. Re: Just part of their war on... everyone by sound+vision · 2018-07-25 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  There might be a few corner cases of users who would like a YouTube alternative, but what really matters are the advertisers. And good luck getting the record industry to let a new startup site host the vast amount of copyright content that makes up a huge chunk of YouTube's traffic...
10. Re:Just part of their war on... everyone by imrahilj · 2018-07-25 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't this more or less what Amazon is trying to do right now with Twitch?
11. Re:Just part of their war on... everyone by Holi · 2018-07-25 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  I love when people link to an "article" in their claims of news bias, only for the "article" to be an opinion based editorial.
  
  --
  Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
12. Re:Just part of their war on... everyone by Luthair · 2018-07-25 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  The agreement is so that Google maintains direction of their service instead of a different experience on every device based on the priorities of the manufacturers.
13. Re:Just part of their war on... everyone by morethanapapercert · 2018-07-25 09:33 · Score: 2
  
  A fact which also means that it is difficult, maybe even impossible, for a manufacturer to add value and differentiate themselves in the set top appliance market. Why bother making yet another Android based streaming content appliance when the only way you can compete is on price? Since Google has its own digital media appliance line, handicapping other manufacturers ability to differentiate themselves is arguably a clear case of anti-competitive behaviour. Both Amazon and Google have vast amounts of cash reserves they can spend on lawyers, so any legal challenge to this practice would likely be long and expensive. What would matter to Amazon is whether the cost of winning is out-weighed by the potential profits. (It seems that Amazon's primary interest in this market is as a channel for promoting their own software and entertainment content, so access to Youtube content would be a lower priority for them anyway)
  
  --
  I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
14. Re:Just part of their war on... everyone by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-25 15:06 · Score: 1
  
  ...{snip}... the best solution is still for someone else to spin up a video streaming site. There's enough people who want an alternative to Youtube for it to work out. But it has to be at least as friendly to uploaders as Youtube...
  First I should preface with the fact I owned and operated a UGC video sharing site pre-YouTube, We reached 42M users with a Billion streams before YouTube outpaced us and all other other UGC video sharing site out there. That service I started had it's hay day and was turned off by the new owners last year, as are most video hosts (it's a Strategic Content business, not a profit business).
  Trying to create a Streaming site now to out compete with YouTube is folly best explained by the Red Queen effect
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen_hypothesis
  To win, this "Youtube Disrupter" would have to go to where YouTube needs to go but can't (The innovators Dilemma).
  YouTube is a service built from the perspective of the video consumer (compared to Vimeo which is a service built from the perspective of a video uploader).
  Where YouTube tried to go but couldn't was to build a product from the perspective of the content curator. (Multi Channel Networks Like Machinama are a good example of this)
  So The new service might likely not host video rather provide an interface to obviate the host and aggregate content-domain appropriate video from many sources. That is, if you love Cats, here are all the great, popular and latest Cat videos from.....(yeah, no one really cares who hosts it Sorry YouTube)
  That Said We also know of a couple areas where Youtube has failed recently. Namely trying to compete with Netflix and Hulu in Premium content land (trying to be what they're not) And then alienating their top uploaders for not having "Brand Safe" advertiser-friendly messaging. So there is a desire for a replacement.
  Technically the challenge has to be paid for, I can't underscore the time, money and human cost of moderating videos, keeping streaming servers up, and dealing with the problem of serving millions of different videos to millions of different people. Trust me I ran a business doing this for 6 years and before I did that I was trained as an AT&T Backbone and IDC engineer. At scale it's a horribly inefficient design which is one reason why YouTube hires thousands of employees.
  A well run web service should have no employees, so we can see the YouTube core design is being scaled through Google's application of brute force capital.
  Thankfully there is a solution.
  When I first built my service my day job was watching Bit Torrent fill up the backbone with packets. It was painfully clear that P2P design is a fundamentally superior solution for Media distribution. When you're getting started and boot strapping from your garage it's a million times easier to just make a single server solution, which is what happened with Napster. But if you don't have serve content in a way that Madison Avenue approves, they shut you down (which is also what happened to Napster and is happening to YouTube streamers today).
  15 years ago The tech to make P2P streaming simply wasn't possible, but now the only thing that truthfully blocks a serverless P2P Video streaming network is the "No Ad-Hoc Networks" Commandment from the Apple App Store. That's it. Remove that non-technical business-focused limitation and we could see the app that replaces YouTube.
  And Ironically the tech to do Serverless P2P streaming was recently created in 2011 by Bram Cohen while working at Bit Torrent,
  So guess what? That means it's never going to happen because Bit Torrent suffered so hard at the hands of Madison Aveneue that the LAST THING they're going to do is release tech that would piss off their now media partners.
  So the tech is there to make what happens after YouTube, but it's held back by business interest. Which is ironic to me, because when UGC video sharing popped 15 years ago it was against everyone's bus
Shadow DOM is a W3C standard by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-25 02:15 · Score: 5, Interesting

Shadow DOM is a W3C standard. I don't know why they throw in "v0" there, as far as I know, the version of the Shadow DOM that Chrome supports is the released standard. Firefox flat-out doesn't support it yet.
The Shadow DOM makes various repeated elements load much faster because it allows the same snippet of HTML be reused without being reparsed. It's a very useful feature if you're writing a web UI library where you have effectively the same HTML chunk over and over again. The lack of support in Firefox and Edge is annoying and results in effectively having to manually add the elements to the DOM, which is, not surprisingly, slower than just being able to copy them.
This isn't Google being evil. This is Google using web standards that Firefox is too lazy to adapt.
1. Re: Shadow DOM is a W3C standard by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-25 02:30 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  No, I'm saying this isn't an instance of it. Firefox is literally saying "stop using a published W3C standard we don't support because using it makes Chrome faster than Firefox." They're saying Google should artificially slow down YouTube to match Firefox rather than implementing the published Shadow DOM standard.
2. Re:Shadow DOM is a W3C standard by GeLeTo · 2018-07-25 02:34 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  The parent post is moderated into oblivion but it is 100% correct. The statement that Shadow DOM is deprecated is factually wrong. If Shadow DOM did not exist - Polymer apps would have been equally slow on all browsers. Firefox currently has experimental support for Shadow DOM, you can enable it with the dom.webcomponents.shadowdom.enabled flag.
3. Re: Shadow DOM is a W3C standard by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-25 02:40 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  More fully,
  
  Shadow DOM supported by default in Chrome and Opera. Firefox is very close; they are currently available if you set the preferences dom.webcomponents.enabled and dom.webcomponents.shadowdom.enabled to true. Firefox's implementation is planned to be enabled by default in version 63. Safari supports shadow DOM already, and Edge is working on an implementation as well.
  https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Web_Components/Using_shadow_DOM
4. Re: Shadow DOM is a W3C standard by bianguyen · 2018-07-25 02:48 · Score: 2
  
  From the linked article Another rather interesting aspect to note is that Polymer's latest versions support both Shadow DOM v0 and v1 APIs, but for some reason, Google still uses Polymer 1.0 with the deprecated API. I read this as Google continuing to use the old ( probably draft) API instead of the actual released version.
5. Re:Shadow DOM is a W3C standard by squiggleslash · 2018-07-25 02:55 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  This appears to be correct. Mozilla are in the middle of implementing Shadow DOM and there's an about:config flag you can flip to turn it on (although whether that means Youtube will automatically start using it is another question, most websites go by browser ID rather than probing for features alas.)
  The notion this is tied to "version 0" is the bit that I don't get about the summary. It doesn't matter what version of Shadow DOM is targeted by Youtube, none of the major browsers except Chrome supports it right now.
  On that basis, I'd say "Google making use of a good new standard that they happen to support but other browser makers haven't gotten around to yet, with a safe workaround for browsers that don't support it" is hardly the anticompetitive act the summary makes it out to be. I'd expect websites, be they Google or anyone else, to do the same thing.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
6. Re:Shadow DOM is a W3C standard by ichimunki · 2018-07-25 02:56 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  No one said Shadow DOM is deprecated. The point is that Polymer 1.0, which is being used on YouTube uses on Shadow DOM v0, which is deprecated. They could update their version of Polymer to 2.0 or higher and rely instead on Shadow DOM v1, which is not deprecated. https://www.chromestatus.com/f...
  
  --
  I do not have a signature
7. Re:Shadow DOM is a W3C standard by GeLeTo · 2018-07-25 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  Looking further, there's a more recent version - Shadow DOM v1. Chrome is still the only browser that has support for Shadow DOM, so whether YouTube uses v0 or v1 is irrelevant for Firefox.
8. Re:Shadow DOM is a W3C standard by ichimunki · 2018-07-25 02:58 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  They throw "v1" in there because "v0" is deprecated and the version of Polymer that Google is using on YouTube uses v0. https://www.chromestatus.com/f...
  
  --
  I do not have a signature
9. Re:Shadow DOM is a W3C standard by squiggleslash · 2018-07-25 03:02 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  They could, but that wouldn't fix the problem here, the version number is a red herring. Mozilla, IE, et al, do not support Shadow DOM at all, not any version. They have plans, there's an about:config flag in Firefox you can flip to test their current implementation, but it's not enabled by default.
  So, what people are saying Google should have done, in order to be "fair" to competitive free browsers including the one Google has funded for most of its lifetime, is to upgrade one of the most highly traffic'd websites on Earth to the "latest version" (not revision, we're talking major version number, so the one with API changes) of the framework they're using in order to achieve literally nothing at all.
  There is no urgency for Google to do any of this until Firefox has Shadow DOM support, and it's absolutely the wrong thing for Google to do to try to rush an upgrade just to satisfy some competition checklist that has nothing to do with the real world.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
10. Re:Shadow DOM is a W3C standard by UPi · 2018-07-25 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  W3C standards can be deprecated. In this case, the "Shadow DOM v0" is just that. The new version, supported by 10% more of current browsers, is "Shadow DOM v1". v1 was released in 2016, so rolling out a new feature in 2018 against a deprecated and less supported API seems like a bad move from Google.
11. Re:Shadow DOM is a W3C standard by JMJimmy · 2018-07-25 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  I was discussing an upcoming change to Google Sheets - something that violated W3C standards... the Google employee's response was "we'll just change the standard".
12. Re:Shadow DOM is a W3C standard by omnichad · 2018-07-25 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  This is a non-story. They wanted to move Youtube onto Polymer sooner so they did it before Polymer supported a higher version of Shadow DOM than the v0. A good move to be ready for the next version. Chances are good a new version of Polymer will be out before 2019, since it relies on an API that is going away.
  Firefox is blowing it out of proportion simply to get people to ignore the "v0" in the equation. Firefox has been working on adding Shadow DOM support for 3 years and still aren't there yet.
13. Re:Shadow DOM is a W3C standard by Guspaz · 2018-07-25 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  Chrome already deprecated support for v0, with support being entirely removed from Chrome around 9 months from now. So yes, it was a bad decision for them to use v0, but that particular decision is hardly anti-competitive. Their own browser is going to break the framework in a few months.
14. Re:Shadow DOM is a W3C standard by POWRSURG · 2018-07-25 04:08 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The point of mentioning version 0 is because every major browser that is working on Shadow DOM is developing towards version 1. The v0 implementation was more experimental that made its way out there because Google doesn't always go through the proper standards practice. Version 1 is actually going through the normal standardization process. Firefox and Safari have the version 1 code in development, while Edge has it marked as a high priority consideration.
  To be clear, Chrome deprecated v0 in April 2018 and will remove in 2019. If Google does nothing than Chrome will slow down on YouTube as it will have the same issues Firefox and Edge currently are feeling.
15. Re:Shadow DOM is a W3C standard by BronsCon · 2018-07-25 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  A version of Polymer that supports the current version of the API already exists. Google chose not to use it.
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
16. Re:Shadow DOM is a W3C standard by omnichad · 2018-07-25 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  Or, they chose to eventually use it and Youtube doesn't work well with it yet. Seems a lot more likely.
17. Re:Shadow DOM is a W3C standard by BronsCon · 2018-07-25 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  When they chose to use Polymer v1 YouTube didn't work with it at all; they had to rewrite parts of the site to use Polymer at all. At that time, they could have chosen Polymer v2, which uses the Shadow DOM v1 API.
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
18. Re:Shadow DOM is a W3C standard by ichimunki · 2018-07-25 04:38 · Score: 3
  
  I never said it would fix the problem. I am simply attempting to clarify the situation regarding statements about what is and is not deprecated. If Google were to switch to a library using v1, then at least Firefox users could turn on Shadow DOM support, which is available as an experimental feature. And as it stands, Firefox has Shadow DOM enabled in the nightly build, so I would assume "it's coming soon". As it stands, I'm not sure how one tests FF + YouTube with the experimental Shadow DOM enabled since YouTube is using a deprecated version of Shadow DOM.
  Given that Google have had Polymer 2.0 in general release since March 15, 2017, and they're currently on Polymer 3.0... perhaps they should feel some sense of urgency in getting one of their flagship web properties up to date? That's an awful long time to sit on a library that relies on an API that was deprecated back in April of this year.
  
  --
  I do not have a signature
19. Re:Shadow DOM is a W3C standard by omnichad · 2018-07-25 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  And they must have run into some problems with that, right? Problems that apparently were quicker to solve with an older version of Polymer on a temporary basis.
20. Re:Shadow DOM is a W3C standard by BronsCon · 2018-07-25 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  Let's see... YouTube worked before Polymer was brought into the fold, no new features were added in doing so, and they felt the need to use an older version just to push it out faster? No, the entire feature was the addition of Polymer, which could have been put off while issues were solved. Using a deprecated version to get it out the door sooner might be an acceptable choice (it's arguable) for an initial release or an experimental new feature, but when they use of the library in the first place is the feature, it's bad form.
  
  If v1 and v2 are different enough for what you posit to even be possible, anything written against v1 will have to be rewritten with v2 is finally used. Hell, it's not even like Polymer 2v is new, Polymer v3 was released in January!
  
  Are you saying that Google's engineers are too incompetent to release using the newest version of a library they developed in-house? Or that the Chrome team is too incompetent to maintain functional compatibility (e.g. not remove useful functions from new versions) between versions of a library they lead the development of?
  
  In either case, the fault lies with Google. Whatever their reason for not using v2 (or v3), they chose not to use it.
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
21. Re:Shadow DOM is a W3C standard by bill_mcgonigle · 2018-07-25 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  Their own browser is going to break the framework in a few months.
  So you're saying YouTube is going to break and Chrome users will be out of luck in a few months?
  I mean, the only alternative is that YouTube engineers are working on getting shadowdomv1 working now so it's ready for newer Chrome and newer Firefox soon, but then what could the MoFo guy complain about if the solution to his problem is already in the works?
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
22. Re:Shadow DOM is a W3C standard by omfglearntoplay · 2018-07-25 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  If it looks like anti-competition, smells like anti-competition, and involves Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon or similar... guess what?
23. Re: Shadow DOM is a W3C standard by chris-chittleborough · 2018-07-25 17:06 · Score: 1
  
  Firefox's implementation is planned to be enabled by default in version 63. Safari supports shadow DOM already, and Edge is working on an implementation as well.
  
  https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Web_Components/Using_shadow_DOM
  And Firefox 63 is due to be released in October.
24. Re:Shadow DOM is a W3C standard by thegarbz · 2018-07-25 20:53 · Score: 1
  
  No one said Shadow DOM is deprecated.
  
  TFS:
  "In a thread on Twitter, Mozilla's Technical Program Manager has stated that YouTube's Polymer redesign relies heavily on the deprecated Shadow DOM v0 API, which is only available in Chrome."
  Which is almost verbatim from Twitter which came right from the fingertips of Chris Peterson of Mozilla.
  I know, reading is hard.
25. Re:Shadow DOM is a W3C standard by ichimunki · 2018-07-26 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  I can see where you think reading is hard. Because the summary is clearly referring to v0, which is deprecated, not v1 which is not.
  
  --
  I do not have a signature
Pornhub vs Youtube by sycodon · 2018-07-25 02:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

Pornhub wins every time.
Loading speed, Video smoothness, lack of interruption.
Every time Youtube content gets the spinning circle, I check Pornhub...Yep, smooth as silk, or a freshly shaven...
Then YouTube tries to blame my provider.
Pornhub is the Future of the Internet!

--
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
1. Re:Pornhub vs Youtube by Kokuyo · 2018-07-25 02:30 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  There's a reason gun enthusiasts have started using pornhub instead of youtube ;).
2. Re:Pornhub vs Youtube by Agripa · 2018-07-28 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  There's a reason gun enthusiasts have started using pornhub instead of youtube ;).
  That worked until Pornhub started kicking them off also for politically incorrect content.
Fight back - make your site slow too by raymorris · 2018-07-25 02:23 · Score: 4, Funny

I'm going to give Google a taste of their own medicine and make my site slow too. CNN is leading the fight in this; their site is super slow in all the major browsers.
1. Re:Fight back - make your site slow too by Opportunist · 2018-07-25 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  Me too! I'll make my own site! With blackjack! And hookers! In fact...
  Wait, why reinvent the wheel?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
2. Re:Fight back - make your site slow too by liquid_schwartz · 2018-07-25 04:07 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  CNN is leading the fight in this; their site is super slow in all the major browsers.
  Since the only thing worse than fake news is ... slow fake news
3. Re:Fight back - make your site slow too by slipped_bit · 2018-07-25 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  Forget the blackjack!
4. Re:Fight back - make your site slow too by Opportunist · 2018-07-25 22:31 · Score: 1
  
  Forget the site, send the hookers, the booze and the card sharks over to me.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
When a browser is slow by AHuxley · 2018-07-25 02:34 · Score: 1

Add more CPU, RAM and GPU to a desktop computer.
See if that can outpace the software of an ad company.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Whose problem is this? by bigtech · 2018-07-25 02:35 · Score: 1

So, let me get this right. YouTube uses Shadow DOM v0, which while currently supported by Firefox has slow load-times. Wouldn't the best solution be to have Polymer use Shadow DOM v1, and for Firefox to load this at competitive speeds?
This happens with their captchas too by ilikenwf · 2018-07-25 03:08 · Score: 1

Chrome, one and done with recaptcha. Firefox/Waterfox, it forces you to do 3-4 proper captchas and takes the sweet time to load new tiles by fading them out and in...
We neec to get Chrome away from Google by xack · 2018-07-25 03:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

Development of Chrome should be sent off to an independent organization (perhaps forced to by anti trust courts). Chrome now has more market share than internet explorer used to and also owns phones and schools with chromebooks. We also need to force Google to code to standards and work on all of the competition’s browsers under interoperability laws. this includes minority browers like waterfox and falkon.
1. Re:We neec to get Chrome away from Google by jeff4747 · 2018-07-25 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  ShadowDOM is a W3C standard. Firefox and Edge have not implemented it yet.
  The complaint in the article is that Firefox is behind Chrome in implementing a W3C standard, and somehow that's Chrome's fault.
2. Re:We neec to get Chrome away from Google by butchersong · 2018-07-25 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  I thought firefox supported this behind the "dom.webcomponents.shadowdom.enabled" flag but the bigger question is why Youtube chose v0 rather than v1 that everyone is working to support. Chrome itself has deprecated v0: https://www.chromestatus.com/f...
3. Re:We neec to get Chrome away from Google by Arkham · 2018-07-25 08:19 · Score: 1
  Development of Chrome should be sent off to an independent organization (perhaps forced to by anti trust courts). Chrome now has more market share than internet explorer used to and also owns phones and schools with chromebooks. We also need to force Google to code to standards and work on all of the competition’s browsers under interoperability laws. this includes minority browers like waterfox and falkon.
  So I'm not fan of Google, but this is 100% crap. Some actual facts:
  
  Chromium is open source -- -- the only parts that aren't included are the the commercial codecs like H.264, and those will never be open-source because Google pays the licensing costs and gives away the results for free
  
  Google does code to standards. Shadow DOM v0 API is a standard. It's just an old one (relatively speaking)
  
  Google does a lot of things that I don't like, but Chrome on the whole is a net positive contribution to the web-going world. They push companies like Apple and Mozilla to move faster and do more. Suggesting that someone "take it away" is absurd. Fork the code, release your own browser, have a nice day.
  --
  - Vincit qui patitur.
4. Re:We neec to get Chrome away from Google by jeff4747 · 2018-07-26 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  It is a W3C standard that has been deprecated in favor of v1. It's still a standard. One that Mozilla decided to not implement, largely because they could see v1 coming.
  But v1 coming does not require Google to not write anything in v1, especially since it was probably the active standard when they started the project.
  Also, v1 is a superset of v0. So v1 support would probably give Firefox the higher speed anyway.
5. Re:We neec to get Chrome away from Google by jeff4747 · 2018-07-26 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  but the bigger question is why Youtube chose v0 rather than v1 that everyone is working to support.
  My guess is Youtube probably started on the project when v0 was the active standard.
  Also, AFAIK they didn't do anything that is v0-specific. So v1 support in Firefox should give it the same "higher speed" as Chrome.
I am APK the LORD of HOSTS by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-25 03:46 · Score: 3, Interesting

I am APK the great "LORD of HOSTS", a.k.a. AlecStaar or Alexander Peter Kowalski.

See subject & APK Hosts File Engine 2.0++ 64-bit for Linux h t t p : / / I . a m . a . f u c k i n g / a s s h o l e . r e t a r d . z i p (remove spaces between characters & download).

I am the godlike creator of various GUI front-ends for other people's configuration files.

Calling people ne'er-do-wells or Jealous JOWIEs is how I think I win every argument

When people state the truth about me I get really mad and accuse them of projecting which is something I do all the time.

Don't call me out on anything unless you are willing to prove you too can write some strings to a file programmatically

Spamming and being a general pain in the ass is what I do

Listen as I relive my glory days of being a college athlete in the early 80s

You must be conspiring with the Jews and Soros if you disagree with me

Bask in my greatness as I can do a ping as a non root user.

Watch as I whine about my work being flagged as malware by anti-virus software.

Witness my descent into madness

APK
Chrome is IE all over again by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-25 03:58 · Score: 1

Users were dumb enough to be drawn into Chrome and now its come back to haunt everyone just as IE did when it completely dominated the web. Even other browsers like Opera and Brave along with other have all just become more Chrome clone's. You either use Chrome or a clone or face issues with some web sites. Its just that simple and frankly I don't see any light at the end for any other browser including Firefox and Edge. Chrome like IE is it and everything else is a second class browser.
Polymer expects avantgarde web features ... by Qbertino · 2018-07-25 03:59 · Score: 1

... and if they're not there polyfills them. ... That means it lazy-loads JS libs that emulate those features. This may make some browsers slower if those features need polyfilling.
The goal of Polymer is to offer the cutting edge of web features today and wither away as these features become native in all browsers everywhere.
It's that simple. No rucus required. Move along.

--
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
1. Re:Polymer expects avantgarde web features ... by serviscope_minor · 2018-07-25 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  That's great, but what is fine in some library can become anticompetitive when a massive monopoly does it.
  If you make Qbert's own video site slow on Firefox, nothing much changes. If you make your own browser (with a high usage share) and make one of the largest websites in the world much worse on a competing browser when you've already been levering other monopolistic advantages to squeeze out the browser then yes there is a problem.
  Google are behaving like the bad old Microsoft.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
It does not matter because by Gabest · 2018-07-25 04:57 · Score: 1

Because Chrome plays videos in VP9 format and it is slower to decode, older hardware has no acceleration either.
I agree. by TheCastro1689 · 2018-07-25 05:15 · Score: 1

It won't even load on my edge or IE browsers, but man it loads on Chrome.
Google becomes Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-25 21:08 · Score: 1

More and more I look at Google, more it looks like Microsoft from 2000. What a pity that the once not evil company took this path.