Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Denies Altering YouTube Code To Break Microsoft Edge (theverge.com)

Posted by msmash on from the setting-the-record-straight dept.

Earlier this week, a former Microsoft Edge intern alleged that Google deliberately introduced bogus changes to YouTube to break the functionality of the video portal when users on Edge and other browsers tried to access the website. Google today denied the allegation. From a report: Google disputes Bakita's claims, and says the YouTube blank div was merely a bug that was fixed after it was reported. "YouTube does not add code designed to defeat optimizations in other browsers, and works quickly to fix bugs when they're discovered," says a YouTube spokesperson in a statement to The Verge. "We regularly engage with other browser vendors through standards bodies, the Web Platform Tests project, the open-source Chromium project and more to improve browser interoperability." In a statement, Microsoft said, "Google has been a helpful partner and we look forward to the journey as we work on the future of Microsoft Edge."

10 of 135 comments (clear)

  1. we believe by zlives · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1. we believe google when they say that they didn't blank microsoft
    2. we believe microsoft that the blank div is the only reason edge was a massive fuckin piece of crap and failed.

    1. Re:we believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I believe Microsoft suspected Google of playing dirty, because that's exactly what Microsoft would have done.

    2. Re:we believe by DarkRookie2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I believe neither of them
      Google can't make a webpage properly, and Microsoft can't make a browser.

      --
      http://progressquest.com/spoltog.php?name=Son+Of+Son+Of+DarkRookie
    3. Re:we believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, it certainly was either incompetence or malice. Google were (actually are) using a non-standard "Shadow DOM v0" model that was only implemented in the Google Chrome browser. On non-chrome, a "polyfill" or pure javascript implementation of that DOM engine was used instead.

      And it's not just Microsoft that are complaining here.

      That's right, all you anti-microsoft blinkered people out there, Mozilla has the same complaint about Google.

      YouTube basically uses an experimental version ("v0") of the shadow DOM API that is officially oboslete before it really got any traction (it's been superceeded by other versions). It was so obsolete that only Chrome implements. it is officially "depcreated" by Google, but we'll see what happens in April 2019.

    4. Re:we believe by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nobody's accusing them of blanking Microsoft Edge. The conspiracy theory the former Edge engineer spouted is that Google defeated an Edge optimization by inserting a hidden HTML element on their YouTube pages.

      The problem with the theory is that to accept this, you have to pretty much accept that Microsoft optimized Edge to render YouTube really well, which means almost any changes would have broken the optimization, and moreover the intent of those optimizations was probably to cheat on benchmarks. If adding a DIV is enough to break an optimization, then that suggests Edge's performance on YouTube was out of whack with its normal performance and you'd expect slower performance on normal websites.

      So, it's kinda like Microsoft and Google running an race, Microsoft sneaking into a car and driving half way, only for the car to break down, and then complaining Google must have poured sugar in the gas tank.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    5. Re:we believe by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you believe either company isn't running on maximum nastiness setting these days? I have a bridge you might be interested in. From GOOG locking more and more of Android behind the Playwall and making what SHOULD be bog standard X86 laptops that are so locked down you have to jailbreak them (and still can't run any OS you want like on a standard X86 lappy) to MSFT using the poor Windows Home peasants as beta testers for their Enterprise customers? Frankly both companies have become so damn douchey they give Massengill a run for their money.

      I've said it before and I'll say it again, they should have broken up MSFT in 00 and they should break up GOOG now, you have too much power in too small a space and nothing good will come of it. We saw what it was like during the "Requires IE 6" days and its looking like its gonna get that way again with Chrome and it wasn't good then but will be even worse now with the push for SaaS.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  2. When Asking Google .. by corezz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... does this reporter seriously think Google was ever going to say: "We sure did try to cripple Edge! Guilty as charged! Oh and bring on the anti-trust lawsuits because we don't give a fook."

  3. Re:And so did Microsioft by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Informative

    While Netscape wasn't Mr. Standard Complaint. IE, with Active X combined with being installed and integrated in the OS so it couldn't be removed. Is what really got it, more then any coding fault in Netscape.
    Being integrated in the OS, meant the browsers components started up when you booted the OS, and took less foot print, because it was used for other components, (such as the file browser). Active X was faster then Java Applets, because they only ran on Windows so it was just running the application, with the browser replacing window frame.

    Back when PCs were just breaching 200mhz, and 16megabytes of RAM was considered a common amount. Waiting about a minute to load up a browser was common. To have it pop up after a double click was a big deal. And for the Web-Applications to have it run snappy was a big deal too. As on these old system, Running Java Byte Code was a big process.

    Now granted Active-X combined with high level browser OS integration was a long term Stupid idea, because it turned your computer into a pile of goo. Because a bad Active-X control can take over your computer, and via the browser you have access all areas of your OS outside your normal permissions. But at the time, people didn't care about it, because "Why would anyone want to hack me? My computer isn't special"

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  4. A bug. by QuietLagoon · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yup, that's the ticket, a bug. Funny how the bug just happened to affect the performance of a competitor's browser.

  5. You ever notice by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Anytime a company gets caught doing something stupid these days that it's always a bug, glitch or software error ?
    " Oh, it was a bug. "

    It's like a perfect digital scapegoat where no one has to face any consequences.

    Oh the algorithm accidentally sold all of our stock at .1 instead of 100 dollars a share ?
    " Not our fault, the computer did it ! "

    Oh we accidentally shared all of your personal info online.
    " Bug "

    No matter how epic a problem that gets created, they always go to the same excuse.
    " Bug "