Former Edge Browser Intern Alleges Google Sabotaged Microsoft's Browser (ycombinator.com)

Joshua Bakita, a former software engineering intern on the Edge team at Microsoft, says one of the reasons why Microsoft had to ditch EdgeHTML rendering engine in Edge browser and switch to Chromium was to keep up with the changes (some of which were notorious) that Google pushed to its sites. These changes were designed to ensure that Edge and other browsers could not properly run Google's sites, he alleged. Responding to a comment, he wrote: "For example, they may start integrating technologies for which they have exclusive, or at least 'special' access. Can you imagine if all of a sudden Google apps start performing better than anyone else's?" This is already happening. I very recently worked on the Edge team, and one of the reasons we decided to end EdgeHTML was because Google kept making changes to its sites that broke other browsers, and we couldn't keep up.

For example, they recently added a hidden empty div over YouTube videos that causes our hardware acceleration fast-path to bail (should now be fixed in Win10 Oct update). Prior to that, our fairly state-of-the-art video acceleration put us well ahead of Chrome on video playback time on battery, but almost the instant they broke things on YouTube, they started advertising Chrome's dominance over Edge on video-watching battery life. What makes it so sad, is that their claimed dominance was not due to ingenious optimization work by Chrome, but due to a failure of YouTube. On the whole, they only made the web slower.

Now while I'm not sure I'm convinced that YouTube was changed intentionally to slow Edge, many of my co-workers are quite convinced -- and they're the ones who looked into it personally. To add to this all, when we asked, YouTube turned down our request to remove the hidden empty div and did not elaborate further. And this is only one case.

Comments

Boo hoo

[Anonymous Coward]

"but due to a failure of YouTube."

You mean a failure of Edge?

Re:Boo hoo

[jellomizer]

Microsoft has to learn how to make software like everyone else. You need to keep compatibility with the big fish, and not just do your own thing, and thinking everyone will switch to your method.

I am sorry, I had to code too many IE 6 workarounds and not put in new features due to having to keep IE 6 compatibility for so long, I have no sympathy to this Edge engineer.

Re:Boo hoo

[DontBeAMoran]

The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your ally.

Re:Boo hoo

[stinerman]

Sure, I'm not losing sleep either, but if Google is making useless changes to their websites in order to specifically screw with Edge, that's bad. If they are making useful changes to their websites...and it happens to screw with Edge. Not really their problem. Of course I didn't RTFA, so I can't really say which is which.

Re:Boo hoo

[Spy Handler]

Yeah it's funny when Google is messing around with Microsoft and deliberately making Microsoft products run slower. Microsoft is simply getting a taste of its own medicine, as they used to deliberately make things broken in IE6 back when they had the dominant browser.

But it's not so funny when (or if) Google adds stuff that slows down Firefox or other open source competitors to Chrome.

Re:Boo hoo

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, they recently added a hidden empty div over YouTube videos that causes our hardware acceleration fast-path to bail

Sounds like bullshit to me.

Firefox and Palemoon, running on both Windows 7 and Windows 10, work just fine with YouTube, GMail and Google search.

Just admit that Edge is shit.

Re:Boo hoo

[EndlessNameless]

So what you're saying is... Google is following in Microsoft's evil footsteps?

Re:Boo hoo

[markdavis]

>"But it's not so funny when (or if) Google adds stuff that slows down Firefox or other open source competitors to Chrome."

Bingo. And if anyone thinks that isn't already happening or won't happen, they need a reality check. Chrome has decimated Firefox's market share- and most of it undeserved. Firefox is the last light in the "true" open-source, multi-platform, modern browser era. We will all absolutely be worse off if that light is extinguished.

Ask yourselves if there is really any good reason now to "automatically" install Chrome on machines or recommend it to friends and family. If not, consider making it Firefox. The painful redesign of the Firefox engine that lost some of the addons ended up making Firefox just as fast and more resource friendly while still being much more user-oriented and configurable than Chrome... and with a huge bonus of not being tied into all kinds of other incentives to do bad things with your data. (Looking at you, YouTube/Android/Gmail/Gmaps/Gwhatever users..).

Re: Boo hoo

[ironicsky]

I came here to say this.

ActiveX
Silverlight

Incompatible CSS and IE specific JavaScript.

Microsoft is one of the reasons the internet was a standards nightmare, while Mozilla, Google and Opera all played nice with standards, Microsoft didn't.

Re:Boo hoo

[Sumus Semper Una]

Microsoft has to learn how to make software like everyone else. You need to keep compatibility with the big fish, and not just do your own thing, and thinking everyone will switch to your method.

So much this. All the other browsers had to deal with these same changes to Google sites too. Why was it so much more painful to Microsoft? Well, I thought this piece from the article was pretty telling:

What's particularly interesting about this is that whether Google did this intentionally or not, Microsoft fell into a trap that it set for itself. When Bakita says, "we couldn't keep up", and goes on to say that the issue is fixed in the Windows 10 October 2018 Update, that's actually because Microsoft set a path for itself where it could only add new features to Edge with feature updates to Windows 10. That limits the company to twice per year.

I'm sorry, but this browser was doomed as soon as it arrived due to fundamental flaws in its design. Blaming Google is just focusing on the convenient obvious symptom instead of addressing the root problem.

To be fair, that's exactly the kind of mistake I'd expect to see an intern make.

Re:Boo hoo

[DarkRookie2]

Yet.
I give it a couple of years before everything but Search and YouTube requires Chrome
And 5 years for Search and YouTube.

Re: Boo hoo

[TheSunborn]

Yes, and if an empty div changes anything of that, Edge got far bigger problems then I can imagine.

But the number of websites which works in Firefox and Chrome but not Edge, is so big, that I really think the issue is with Edge, and not Google.

Re: Boo hoo

[mark-t]

Edge isn't IE.

Believe it or not, it seems that MS really learned their lesson. Edge ain't perfect, but it virtually on par with most other browsers for standards compliance. Only Chrome has a significant lead in that regard.

Of course, I imagine it's just a whole lot easier to carry on the MS hate than it is to actually pause and take a look at what's really going on.

Re:Boo hoo

[c]

Firefox is the last light in the "true" open-source, multi-platform, modern browser era. We will all absolutely be worse off if that light is extinguished.

You're not wrong, and I'd like to like Firefox, but I don't really have the time and energy to keep figuring out where my extensions and plugins keep disappearing to.

Re:Boo hoo

[DontBeAMoran]

Google would be able to change YouTube's code a lot faster than Microsoft could push out updates for Edge.

Re: Boo hoo

[iserlohn]

I don't see Apple or Mozilla complaining. The whole issue is with Edge and how slow its update model is.

Re:Boo hoo

[Tuidjy]

Google would be able to change YouTube's code a lot faster than Microsoft could push out updates for Edge.

And Microsoft is well aware of this. Why? Because that's exactly how they were conducting their "embrace, extend, extinguish" policy when they were the big bully on the block.

Do you notice that it's an intern complaining, and not an official Microsoft statement? I guess that they are ashamed, or unwilling to remind those of us who remember of all the hoops we had to jump to keep stuff IE (was it 6) compliant. Client side VisualBasic, not-quite JavaScript, non-compliance to standards, etc.

Google has read Microsoft's "Book of Evulz", and is following it to the letter.

Re: Boo hoo

[Bert64]

Google now gets carte blanche for being just as evil? Wut?

If they're doing it to microsoft - yes, poetic justice.
If they're doing it to firefox etc, no.

If someone from mozilla or opera was making this complaint they would justifiably get some sympathy here, microsoft don't deserve any.

Yes, we can imagine

[NaCh0]

Can you imagine if all of a sudden ________ apps start performing better than anyone else's?

Yes we can. Ask the DR-DOS team.

Re:Yes, we can imagine

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that's what the whole "living standard" malarky is all about.

It's the browser wars all over again, just with google as king of the hill this time. But they don't have the moral high ground, just like microsoft didn't when they fucked over ECMA and ISO for their "ooxml" abortion. So microsoft took a few risks too many with "edge". They aren't so great on code robustness seeing their problems on windows, anyway. So they're trying to get back at google by co-opting google's own source. Apart from the loss of face, it might be a good strategy, or backfire horribly, depending on just how devious and low google is willing to stoop.

Either way, as far as I'm concerned, both are welcome to burn for their crimes.

Re:Yes, we can imagine

[Anonymous Coward]

Attitudes like this are basically the reason people are going to pissed in about 10 more years when Google really is the new Microsoft. We have the chance to fix the issue now, but people like you are too obsessed with rubbing Microsoft's nose in the dirt over 15+ year old mistakes to realize you're enabling Google to do the exact same shit.

Re:Yes, we can imagine

[WaffleMonster]

Fix what issue? Should Google stop developing new technology? A lot of the improvements to the standards have come from Google and other doing this kind of work. HTTP3 is based on Google technology that was pioneered with Chrome and Google sites, and it's excellent.

HTTP3 is Google wrestling control over the remaining part of the stack Google doesn't have full ownership over.

You might think pushing congestion control out to user space where Google has intentionally given themselves a 2x advantage over TCP is "excellent". When I look at that it's nothing more than a pure power grab for self-serving reasons actively harmful to everyone else.

There is nothing substantive HTTP3 brings to the table TFO+TLS 1.3 does not already provide.

Microsoft's stuff was closed source proprietary bug-ridden crap. Lack of support broke sites, while Google is careful to ensure that sites work fine in other browsers. Remember when you couldn't download stuff from Microsoft.com because it needed IE?

How is memory lane at all relevant to the issue at hand? Microsoft sucks or sucked or whatever therefore ... what? Google gets a pass?

What exactly has Google done wrong here?

*IF* the assertions are true Google intentionally leveraged it's monopoly position to intentionally sabotage other browsers to get more people to switch to Chrome.

Re:Yes, we can imagine

[squiggleslash]

While there's probably no doubt Google is trying to take over the browser market, this "We built our web browser so it will be especially fast when rendering YouTube, and Google broke it by adding a hidden element to a webpage" argument is a spectacularly bad example.

Bear in mind what the Edge engineer is tacitly admitting here: Microsoft tried to cheat on a benchmark. They optimized the entire browser to render ONE popular website REALLY REALLY well, and their optimizations were so specific that the entire house of cards collapsed when Google added a single element, an element that wasn't even visible. So, they cheated, Google changed something, and suddenly Edge was rendering YouTube with the same performance it would render everyone else's video website.

Let's focus on real examples of Google breaking standards or favoring those Chrome supports over better supported standards, not Microsoft trying to cheat on benchmarks and Google fucking it up for them.

Chrome is the new IE

[PhunkySchtuff]

Chrome is repeating all the tricks that Microsoft used in the 90's to ensure browser dominance.
Don't be evil. Yeah, right. Sell eyeballs at any cost.

Re:Nope. Wrong.

[Etcetera]

That's not the point... Just because OSS is involved doesn't mean Google isn't asserting dominating control over the Internet.

This is not something to cheer on no matter how much irony there may be in Microsoft being the victim this time.

This is funny

[Miser]

Time for Microsoft to get a taste of their own medicine perhaps? (i.e. DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run, etc)

-Miser

Re:Embrace Extend Extinguish

[93 Escort Wagon]

We may be seeing Microsoft getting a taste of its own medicine.

So is it really okay if Google screws over other web browsers with Chrome-specific hacks, just because Microsoft did it a decade or so ago? Cuz in doing so, Google is also causing problems for people who aren't using Edge or Internet Explorer.

I think if it was evil when Microsoft did it, it's also evil if Google does it.

I'll take "Karma's a bizotch" for 500, Alex

[bdrasin]

Anyone who remembers Microsoft from about 1988 through 2005 has to find the irony just delicious

Re:Embrace Extend Extinguish

[markdavis]

>"Satisfying as that may be, it still change Google into a bunch of hymn singing angels."

Exactly. Which is why it is more important than ever to support Mozilla Firefox. We absolutely do NOT want to end up with Google in control of everything.... any more than what we dealt with when Microsoft was ruining the web.

There was a time when Chrome pulled ahead of Firefox in performance. That time ended. It is a good time to switch to or switch back to Firefox. You will have web-standards-based browsing on all platforms, open source, open development team, just as many addons, but with more user control and customization.

How many IE's are still installed only to...

[ffkom]

run "web"-services that relied on Microsoft-proprietary extensions that were built only to make it impossible for non-Windows-browsers to be compatible?

It's hilarious when it is Microsoft who complains about the strategy they have been using for decades to suppress healthy competition.

Google can go to hell, but Microsoft should lead the way.

Say what?!

[gosand]

I agree with a lot of the other up-modded comments, but let me get this straight... MS worked on EdgeHTML for 4 years, and finally threw in the towel because of changes that Google kept implementing on their sites? Edge hardly even broke 2% of the browser market share - EVER.

Google makes a lot of little changes, all the time. And they probably do get 'insight' into the benefit of those before others. But I think it's pretty clear that MS didn't fail with Edge because of Google. MS failed because they still really don't play well with others. It's just that now, the others are the big dogs in the yard.