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.
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.
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.
The issue isn't the CPU overheating, it's the VRMs, which are underspecced for the amount of power they're being asked to put out passively cooled, have no active cooling. Ramping up the fans won't help, so it has to be software throttling.
Yet millions of the current generation of skateboarders went out, bought skateboards, and busted out mad tricks after watching Tony Hawk. How pointless, I guess...
It's the right tool if you're hired to work on an application already using it. The only exception to that rule is, of course, if you're hired to rewrite it in something else.
There's a huge difference between security and privacy. Perhaps read the article again with that in mind. Go ahead and use what you want -- hell, I have a Chromebook Pixel and I love it -- but don't delude yourself.
That's great, you've covered the browser.... sort of. What of the OS, though? Before you scream that I'm moving goalposts, I'm merely placing them back where you originally had them.
MS was penalized for anti-competitive behavior after it won the desktop market
They won the desktop market by competing, and good on them for it. What they were actually penalized for was being anti-competitive in an entirely different market when they tried to leverage that win to bolster their position in the browser market.
Now, don't get me wrong, I love how a Mac's display looks uncalibrated -- for personal use. It's great for consuming media, videos and photos just pop and that's great for the consumer. The Pro line, though, needs accurate color, and the "pop" just makes it complete shit for doing what Macs have always been better at. Of course, that means Macs are no longer better at those things.
Apple does, in fact, do some color calibration. However, what they do is simply to make the display more pleasing to the eye, rather than more accurate for any sort of professional use. My wife and I both work with color, we need accuracy, and we use a Spyder5 colorimeter to profile our displays for Adobe RGB, sRGB, and 6500K output. What we've found is that most panels are designed around 6500K (a white point near those used by both sRGB and Adobe RGB and often referred to as "daylight" in industries that work with color) and get pretty close even without calibration.
However, ever when pitted against relatively inexpensive standalone monitors (think $200 or less), I've noted that Mac displays are often underperformers, color requiring profiles with massive curves in order to output 6500K white, let alone sRGB or Adobe RGB. This was not the case just 8 years ago, especially with the matte displays; but it is the case today, and it mean that, even after calibration, the display on my $2400 MacBook Pro is outclassed by a $200 monitor or the panel in a $500 laptop.
Sorry, fanbois, but I need accurate color today, just as I needed it 8 years ago, and apple no longer provides it.
And before anyone stutters "bu---- bu--- but viewing angles!" Yes, the $500 laptop will have shit viewing angles compared to a Mac (unless we're talking about the MacBook Air). Two points, though: 1) I'm not usually working off to the side of my display, I angle it so that it is pointing directly at me and 2) if a $500 laptop's display offers more accurate color, a comparably-priced laptop's color should be (and, in my experience, actually is) even better. Point #2 is really important, here, as the comparably priced laptops are the ones people doing serious work are going to be buying, which means they're not just getting something comes close at about 20% of the price, they're getting something at the same price point that blows the Mac away.
Truth be told, I am writing this from a MacBook Pro. A 2016 model with intermittent keyboard issues and, as of recently, a flaky touch bar. Oh, and the display flickering... that'd be a GPU issue, as it only seems to happen during playback of hardware-decoded h.264 video. It's fine for software development, which is what it was bought for (a client is a Mac house and I need to be able to test on their platform). At least, when they keyboard isn't fucking up. But I have a PC workstation for the real work; if I have to tie it down with monitor cables anyway, I figured I should afford myself the extra horsepower Apple simply won't sell me.
Well, actually, he may have a point and I am probably 100% wrong about other OEMs using the same panels as Apple; Apple doesn't offer a 4K laptop, while almost every other OEM does. I not exactly a huge fan of MSI (anymore, long story), but the 4K panel in the MSI gaming laptop I bought in 2015, used for 2 years, then passed on to my wife still far surpasses the one in my 2016 MBP. This would not be the case if MSI were using the same panels as Apple; at best, it would be a tie.
I especially hope this is the case with regard to the MacBook Air. And PC OEM caught using those shit panels should be barred from producing laptops, indefinitely.
Well, yeah, because every decent manufacturer buys the same panels from Samsung that Apple is using. I don't know why anyone ever thought Apple's displays were some special magic that nobody else had access to... it's not like they make them in-house.
It's an implicit admission that the issue exists; otherwise, they'd have said something more along the lines of "no such reliability issue exists, so we chose not to spend time on it."
Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
A version of Polymer that supports the current version of the API already exists. Google chose not to use it.
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.
The issue isn't the CPU overheating, it's the VRMs, which are underspecced for the amount of power they're being asked to put out passively cooled, have no active cooling. Ramping up the fans won't help, so it has to be software throttling.
Once you've watched it, there's no point in...
Yet millions of the current generation of skateboarders went out, bought skateboards, and busted out mad tricks after watching Tony Hawk. How pointless, I guess...
It's the right tool if you're hired to work on an application already using it. The only exception to that rule is, of course, if you're hired to rewrite it in something else.
Well the internet as it now exists wasn't built for free.
He means free as in speech, not as in beer.
So you made no other claims during our conversation? None, whatsoever? Okay.
Don't you have something else better to do today?
Yes, and now that I'm done debunking your claims, to the point where you've begun backpedaling and deflecting, I'm off to do those things.
There's a huge difference between security and privacy. Perhaps read the article again with that in mind. Go ahead and use what you want -- hell, I have a Chromebook Pixel and I love it -- but don't delude yourself.
Did you actually read that article?
That's great, you've covered the browser.... sort of. What of the OS, though? Before you scream that I'm moving goalposts, I'm merely placing them back where you originally had them.
The whole while using a browser that does?
On Chrome? I'm wondering... what's the point, then?
MS was penalized for anti-competitive behavior after it won the desktop market
They won the desktop market by competing, and good on them for it. What they were actually penalized for was being anti-competitive in an entirely different market when they tried to leverage that win to bolster their position in the browser market.
Now, don't get me wrong, I love how a Mac's display looks uncalibrated -- for personal use. It's great for consuming media, videos and photos just pop and that's great for the consumer. The Pro line, though, needs accurate color, and the "pop" just makes it complete shit for doing what Macs have always been better at. Of course, that means Macs are no longer better at those things.
You're thinking "for sale". "On sale" is subtly different, in the way the AC you replied to has described.
Apple does, in fact, do some color calibration. However, what they do is simply to make the display more pleasing to the eye, rather than more accurate for any sort of professional use. My wife and I both work with color, we need accuracy, and we use a Spyder5 colorimeter to profile our displays for Adobe RGB, sRGB, and 6500K output. What we've found is that most panels are designed around 6500K (a white point near those used by both sRGB and Adobe RGB and often referred to as "daylight" in industries that work with color) and get pretty close even without calibration.
However, ever when pitted against relatively inexpensive standalone monitors (think $200 or less), I've noted that Mac displays are often underperformers, color requiring profiles with massive curves in order to output 6500K white, let alone sRGB or Adobe RGB. This was not the case just 8 years ago, especially with the matte displays; but it is the case today, and it mean that, even after calibration, the display on my $2400 MacBook Pro is outclassed by a $200 monitor or the panel in a $500 laptop.
Sorry, fanbois, but I need accurate color today, just as I needed it 8 years ago, and apple no longer provides it.
And before anyone stutters "bu---- bu--- but viewing angles!" Yes, the $500 laptop will have shit viewing angles compared to a Mac (unless we're talking about the MacBook Air). Two points, though: 1) I'm not usually working off to the side of my display, I angle it so that it is pointing directly at me and 2) if a $500 laptop's display offers more accurate color, a comparably-priced laptop's color should be (and, in my experience, actually is) even better. Point #2 is really important, here, as the comparably priced laptops are the ones people doing serious work are going to be buying, which means they're not just getting something comes close at about 20% of the price, they're getting something at the same price point that blows the Mac away.
Truth be told, I am writing this from a MacBook Pro. A 2016 model with intermittent keyboard issues and, as of recently, a flaky touch bar. Oh, and the display flickering... that'd be a GPU issue, as it only seems to happen during playback of hardware-decoded h.264 video. It's fine for software development, which is what it was bought for (a client is a Mac house and I need to be able to test on their platform). At least, when they keyboard isn't fucking up. But I have a PC workstation for the real work; if I have to tie it down with monitor cables anyway, I figured I should afford myself the extra horsepower Apple simply won't sell me.
Well, actually, he may have a point and I am probably 100% wrong about other OEMs using the same panels as Apple; Apple doesn't offer a 4K laptop, while almost every other OEM does. I not exactly a huge fan of MSI (anymore, long story), but the 4K panel in the MSI gaming laptop I bought in 2015, used for 2 years, then passed on to my wife still far surpasses the one in my 2016 MBP. This would not be the case if MSI were using the same panels as Apple; at best, it would be a tie.
I especially hope this is the case with regard to the MacBook Air. And PC OEM caught using those shit panels should be barred from producing laptops, indefinitely.
Now if only they'd spec higher quality and better QC'd keyboards...
Well, yeah, because every decent manufacturer buys the same panels from Samsung that Apple is using. I don't know why anyone ever thought Apple's displays were some special magic that nobody else had access to... it's not like they make them in-house.
But you got my point...
Maintenance is literally the opposite of tear-down. Go read the thread again.
It's an implicit admission that the issue exists; otherwise, they'd have said something more along the lines of "no such reliability issue exists, so we chose not to spend time on it."