8 ms·

All of this is exactly what the Web is not supposed to be. Users shouldn't need to buy certain hardware to access different parts of the Internet. It's one of t

All of this is exactly what the Web is not supposed to be. Users shouldn't need to buy certain hardware to access different parts of the Internet. It's one of the big problems with the appification of the WWW in general.

chrismcb 9y ago
You don't. But if you want specialized hardware, that hardware might only access certain parts of the net.
- katastic 9y ago
  Depends entirely on what you mean by specialized. Has a GPU to run games/movies? Fine. Has an "Amazon" logo so it won't load any Amazon competitor's websites? Bull. Hocky.
- B-Con 9y ago
  It isn't specialized hardware, it's generalized hardware with a specialized software stack. Nothing prevents you from accessing the content except for business-level decisions. The point was that we want to avoid tangling business decisions with the general purpose hardware. (Almost everything these days is a general purpose computing device, even our "specialized" hardware is general purpose.)
madez 9y ago
This is why I don't like the web in it's current form. It's not anymore about freely sharing information. It is about creating uncopyable 'experiences' and programs in the web. I don't want services I may or may not use. That is not the web I want. Maybe if browsers didn't include JavaScript, the situation would improve. But even the supposedly user-friendly Mozilla is backing JavaScript.
- tzahola 9y ago
  This is the future you chose :^) https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/07/amid-unprecedented-controversy-w3c-greenlights-drm-web https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/07/amid-unprecedented-con...
- icebraining 9y ago
  Mozilla was co-founded by the creator of JavaScript. Chances are they don't share your opinion regarding it.
- Blaiz0r 9y ago
  I'm glad you and the above poster have said this, I also feel very strongly that the web has been completely trapped by coorporate interests. I feel like the web as we know it should be abandoned to coorporations and people that want an open platform for knowledge sharing should start something new that has to stay open.
  - rusk 9y ago
    This is the nub of the net neutrality argument for me. We don't need to "start something different" we just need to ensure that what's there can still be used for both corporations, and the public at large.
  - eloisant 9y ago
    The web is fine, the "closed garden" experiences are in native apps ecosystems.
  - krapp 9y ago
    >I also feel very strongly that the web has been completely trapped by coorporate interests. "corporate interests" haven't trapped the web. People are choosing to pretend that the web has somehow ceased to exist outside of a few silos, or that javascript has no purpose other than to further corporate or media interests, or that Facebook owns HTML now, but none of that is true. The web is just as open as it's ever been. Just because mainstream viewing habits tend to converge towards a few corporate owned social media sites does not mean the web has become owned by corporations, it just means people have gotten lazy and don't want to work to discover new content.
    - CaptSpify 9y ago
      This is a joke, right? We are building drm into the browsers themselves now. We are letting companies tell people that "there is no way to access media, unless you go through our walled garden" and defending the company! The open web is farther gone than it's ever been.
      - krapp 9y ago
- Angostura 9y ago
  I feel differently. For the most part, I still the Web is about freely sharing information - most of the stuff from the good old days of 1998 is still there. However, in addition various companies who otherwise wouldn't put their content on the Web, have to decided to do so, but on the proviso that technology exists that gives them adequate control over how it is distributed. I don't think that's a particularly bad thing.
- finchisko 9y ago
  Actually that is why you should like web in current form. Google blocked native youtube app, but kept youtube web accessible from amazon devices. IMO there should not be be proprietary app to access youtube or any other service, if the same experience could be delivered for everybody via web. If I owned the Youtube, I'll block Amazon too. They're practically taking advantage and not want to give anything back. Don't want to sell google appliances, don't want to participate in youtube ad program. Only word that came to mind is to describe such a attitude is leech.
  - anon1385 9y ago
    >Actually that is why you should like web in current form. Google blocked native youtube app, but kept youtube web accessible from amazon devices From the article: > Amazon has responded, and its response points to the unfair nature of Google effectively blocking access to the YouTube web site based on the type of device being used to access it. "Echo Show and Fire TV now display a standard web view of YouTube.com and point customers directly to YouTube's existing website," Amazon's statement reads. "Google is setting a disappointing precedent by selectively blocking customer access to an open website. We hope to resolve this with Google as soon as possible."
    - finchisko 9y ago
      If you think about it, those statements doesn't make sense. 1. Google effectively blocking access to the YouTube web site based on the type of device being used to access it. 2. Show and Fire TV now display a standard web view of YouTube.com and point customers directly to YouTube's existing website I understood it, that Google blocked Amazon to access youtube via native app. And Amazon reaction was to switch their youtube app to webview, which basically renders web version of youtube.
  - syshum 9y ago
    >Google blocked native youtube app, but kept youtube web accessible from amazon devices. This is false, the app on the fire tv is simply a webview of https://www.youtube.com/tv https://www.youtube.com/tv that is publicly accessible They are not doing any, no my knowledge, more than wrapping that page up in a webview
- astura 9y ago
  This doesn't make sense, I really don't understand this at all. JavaScript makes the web powerful so more content can be distributed via the Web. Without JavaScript we'd be having much more native apps, not less. The web runs on any platform with a web browser (for the most part), native apps only run from one platform. Crippling the Web leads to more silos.
  - CaptSpify 9y ago
    Javascript takes control from the client and gives it to the server. This is a terrible idea, that has ruined the web. Are there good sides to JS? sure, but they, by far, don't outweigh the bad.
    - astura 9y ago
      Nonsense, javascript runs on the client. No javascript = 100% code runs on the server.
      - CaptSpify 9y ago
        Uh yeah, that's my point. Running code from some random server on your machine without verifying it first is a terrible idea. We really need to start seeing the internet as a dark and scary place again. There's too much blind trust nowadays.
        krapp 9y ago
        How much of the code running on your operating system have you verified before compiling it?
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        CaptSpify 9y ago
        A bit. But that's not the point. The point is I can verify it. There's a mountain of difference between the two.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
simonh 9y ago
I don't think the intention was to block access to the web site. The problem was that Amazon was using a proprietary native app to access YouTube videos, bypassing the web site and without support for any of Google's monetisation strategies they have in their own YouTube apps. That's clearly a foul and has nothing to do with the open web. Arguably Google went too far by blanket blocking based on device, but it might have been the only viable option available to them. Now that Amazon has folded and made the app a wrapper to the YouTube web page rather than accessing the videos directly, I expect Google will enable access again.
- yread 9y ago
  Exactly the same thing happened with Windows Phone's Youtube app. https://www.theverge.com/2013/8/15/4624706/google-blocks-window-phone-youtube-app https://www.theverge.com/2013/8/15/4624706/google-blocks-win... What was Amazon thinking?
- alaxsxaq 9y ago
  They are definitely blocking access to the web site now. First, Google blocked the app because it 'didn't comply with their policies'. Then Amazon changed it so YouTube access from these devices was, essentially, directly through the website. Now that is blocked as well. Google has a point about Amazon not carrying their devices, but I'd take a different approach - I'd lead every YouTube video played through a Fire device with an ad for Google's devices.
  - hrktb 9y ago
    What I find jarring is the asymetry of the effect. Amazon punishes Google directly as a company: users wanting Google product only have to change the URL in their browser. Google in return punishes customer having already bought their Amazon device. If the customer uses a Fire stick for intance, the only alternative to have youtube on the tv is to buy another dongle. The level of fucking with the end customer is disproportionate.
    - majewsky 9y ago
mtgx 9y ago
And it's only going to get worse now that EME/DRM is a standard spec of HTML. Video platforms will only work on certain DRM platforms.
- Mindwipe 9y ago
  If anything, this shows how overblown the EME fuss was, given sevices that don't use it (like YouTube) are becoming less interoperable than services that do (like Netflix).
  - syshum 9y ago
    You sure YouTube does not use it... Even for the Commerical YouTubeTV Service?
    - Mindwipe 9y ago
      YouTube uses it for the viewing of full movies that you've bought from Google Play but view on the YouTube website. Which is about 0.0000000001% of the content on YouTube and not terribly relevant to this thread. The YouTube TV service doesn't use EME, no. And isn't terribly relevant to this thread either.
      - syshum 9y ago
        1. It is relevant because the claim was "YouTube does not use it" not that "most of youtube does not use it" 2. I firmly believe now that EME is standard YouTube will start using it, especially as they start rejecting independent creators in favor of more High Budget Commerical Creators and Tradional media whom they already show a preference for. These Companies will demand it just like the big Movie Studios 3. I am not subscribed to YouTube TV service so I can not confirm but do you have a source or technical document showing they do not. I would be shocked if they were allowed to get Commercial deals to carry main stream cable channels and stream then in the clear with no copy protection.
  - jhasse 9y ago
    YouTube does use EME for paid content. Also you have to use a native app for Netflix and if they wanted to, they could also stop supporting Amazon devices at any time. There wouldn't even be a work-around thanks to EME.
niceperson 9y ago
None of it is free, you know. Saying "It's not supposed to be this way" isn't an argument.
ptero 9y ago
I agree. To narrow it down, IMO the main problem is breaking interoperability (on both sides). Web is built on open standards to ensure diverse systems can talk to each other. As long as systems comply with well defined interfaces they should be able to communicate. A company can introduce additional constraints on top to limit access. However this should still be done based on standards. Using a variety of derived properties to block specific device type is evil in my book. My 2c.
ocdtrekkie 9y ago
There's a huge irony that Google, who has spent millions of dollars investing in net neutrality supporting organizations and astroturfing 'grassroots' efforts to allegedly protect the open web is blocking users from a website based on the device accessing it for anticompetitive business reasons.
- em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
  Google Fiber did a similar thing: they initially banned home servers, which was later relaxed a bit to only ban commercial home servers, but regardless it shows Google's hypocrisy regarding neutrality. (Sure they had some rationalization that since they were prohibiting something entirely it wasn't really interfering with net neutrality.)
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    As a particular hilarity, Google Fiber has repeatedly dodged being classified as a telecom so that it isn't subject to the regulations Comcast and Verizon are.
DerfNet 9y ago
I mean, instead of buy proprietary devices like Fire Sticks and Chromecasts, you could just connect a computer to your TV, have it all, and call it a day. Of course, "all" does not include 1080p playback on Netflix unless you use Edge or Safari

chrismcb 9y ago

You don't. But if you want specialized hardware, that hardware might only access certain parts of the net.

katastic 9y ago
Depends entirely on what you mean by specialized. Has a GPU to run games/movies? Fine. Has an "Amazon" logo so it won't load any Amazon competitor's websites? Bull. Hocky.
B-Con 9y ago
It isn't specialized hardware, it's generalized hardware with a specialized software stack. Nothing prevents you from accessing the content except for business-level decisions. The point was that we want to avoid tangling business decisions with the general purpose hardware. (Almost everything these days is a general purpose computing device, even our "specialized" hardware is general purpose.)

madez 9y ago

This is why I don't like the web in it's current form. It's not anymore about freely sharing information. It is about creating uncopyable 'experiences' and programs in the web. I don't want services I may or may not use. That is not the web I want. Maybe if browsers didn't include JavaScript, the situation would improve. But even the supposedly user-friendly Mozilla is backing JavaScript.

tzahola 9y ago
This is the future you chose :^) https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/07/amid-unprecedented-controversy-w3c-greenlights-drm-web https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/07/amid-unprecedented-con...
icebraining 9y ago
Mozilla was co-founded by the creator of JavaScript. Chances are they don't share your opinion regarding it.
Blaiz0r 9y ago
I'm glad you and the above poster have said this, I also feel very strongly that the web has been completely trapped by coorporate interests. I feel like the web as we know it should be abandoned to coorporations and people that want an open platform for knowledge sharing should start something new that has to stay open.
- rusk 9y ago
  This is the nub of the net neutrality argument for me. We don't need to "start something different" we just need to ensure that what's there can still be used for both corporations, and the public at large.
- eloisant 9y ago
  The web is fine, the "closed garden" experiences are in native apps ecosystems.
- krapp 9y ago
  >I also feel very strongly that the web has been completely trapped by coorporate interests. "corporate interests" haven't trapped the web. People are choosing to pretend that the web has somehow ceased to exist outside of a few silos, or that javascript has no purpose other than to further corporate or media interests, or that Facebook owns HTML now, but none of that is true. The web is just as open as it's ever been. Just because mainstream viewing habits tend to converge towards a few corporate owned social media sites does not mean the web has become owned by corporations, it just means people have gotten lazy and don't want to work to discover new content.
  - CaptSpify 9y ago
    This is a joke, right? We are building drm into the browsers themselves now. We are letting companies tell people that "there is no way to access media, unless you go through our walled garden" and defending the company! The open web is farther gone than it's ever been.
    - krapp 9y ago
Angostura 9y ago
I feel differently. For the most part, I still the Web is about freely sharing information - most of the stuff from the good old days of 1998 is still there. However, in addition various companies who otherwise wouldn't put their content on the Web, have to decided to do so, but on the proviso that technology exists that gives them adequate control over how it is distributed. I don't think that's a particularly bad thing.
finchisko 9y ago
Actually that is why you should like web in current form. Google blocked native youtube app, but kept youtube web accessible from amazon devices. IMO there should not be be proprietary app to access youtube or any other service, if the same experience could be delivered for everybody via web. If I owned the Youtube, I'll block Amazon too. They're practically taking advantage and not want to give anything back. Don't want to sell google appliances, don't want to participate in youtube ad program. Only word that came to mind is to describe such a attitude is leech.
- anon1385 9y ago
  >Actually that is why you should like web in current form. Google blocked native youtube app, but kept youtube web accessible from amazon devices From the article: > Amazon has responded, and its response points to the unfair nature of Google effectively blocking access to the YouTube web site based on the type of device being used to access it. "Echo Show and Fire TV now display a standard web view of YouTube.com and point customers directly to YouTube's existing website," Amazon's statement reads. "Google is setting a disappointing precedent by selectively blocking customer access to an open website. We hope to resolve this with Google as soon as possible."
  - finchisko 9y ago
    If you think about it, those statements doesn't make sense. 1. Google effectively blocking access to the YouTube web site based on the type of device being used to access it. 2. Show and Fire TV now display a standard web view of YouTube.com and point customers directly to YouTube's existing website I understood it, that Google blocked Amazon to access youtube via native app. And Amazon reaction was to switch their youtube app to webview, which basically renders web version of youtube.
- syshum 9y ago
  >Google blocked native youtube app, but kept youtube web accessible from amazon devices. This is false, the app on the fire tv is simply a webview of https://www.youtube.com/tv https://www.youtube.com/tv that is publicly accessible They are not doing any, no my knowledge, more than wrapping that page up in a webview
astura 9y ago
This doesn't make sense, I really don't understand this at all. JavaScript makes the web powerful so more content can be distributed via the Web. Without JavaScript we'd be having much more native apps, not less. The web runs on any platform with a web browser (for the most part), native apps only run from one platform. Crippling the Web leads to more silos.
- CaptSpify 9y ago
  Javascript takes control from the client and gives it to the server. This is a terrible idea, that has ruined the web. Are there good sides to JS? sure, but they, by far, don't outweigh the bad.
  - astura 9y ago
    Nonsense, javascript runs on the client. No javascript = 100% code runs on the server.
    - CaptSpify 9y ago
      Uh yeah, that's my point. Running code from some random server on your machine without verifying it first is a terrible idea. We really need to start seeing the internet as a dark and scary place again. There's too much blind trust nowadays.
      - krapp 9y ago
        How much of the code running on your operating system have you verified before compiling it?
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        CaptSpify 9y ago
        A bit. But that's not the point. The point is I can verify it. There's a mountain of difference between the two.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

simonh 9y ago

I don't think the intention was to block access to the web site. The problem was that Amazon was using a proprietary native app to access YouTube videos, bypassing the web site and without support for any of Google's monetisation strategies they have in their own YouTube apps. That's clearly a foul and has nothing to do with the open web. Arguably Google went too far by blanket blocking based on device, but it might have been the only viable option available to them. Now that Amazon has folded and made the app a wrapper to the YouTube web page rather than accessing the videos directly, I expect Google will enable access again.

yread 9y ago
Exactly the same thing happened with Windows Phone's Youtube app. https://www.theverge.com/2013/8/15/4624706/google-blocks-window-phone-youtube-app https://www.theverge.com/2013/8/15/4624706/google-blocks-win... What was Amazon thinking?
alaxsxaq 9y ago
They are definitely blocking access to the web site now. First, Google blocked the app because it 'didn't comply with their policies'. Then Amazon changed it so YouTube access from these devices was, essentially, directly through the website. Now that is blocked as well. Google has a point about Amazon not carrying their devices, but I'd take a different approach - I'd lead every YouTube video played through a Fire device with an ad for Google's devices.
- hrktb 9y ago
  What I find jarring is the asymetry of the effect. Amazon punishes Google directly as a company: users wanting Google product only have to change the URL in their browser. Google in return punishes customer having already bought their Amazon device. If the customer uses a Fire stick for intance, the only alternative to have youtube on the tv is to buy another dongle. The level of fucking with the end customer is disproportionate.
  - majewsky 9y ago

mtgx 9y ago

And it's only going to get worse now that EME/DRM is a standard spec of HTML. Video platforms will only work on certain DRM platforms.

Mindwipe 9y ago
If anything, this shows how overblown the EME fuss was, given sevices that don't use it (like YouTube) are becoming less interoperable than services that do (like Netflix).
- syshum 9y ago
  You sure YouTube does not use it... Even for the Commerical YouTubeTV Service?
  - Mindwipe 9y ago
    YouTube uses it for the viewing of full movies that you've bought from Google Play but view on the YouTube website. Which is about 0.0000000001% of the content on YouTube and not terribly relevant to this thread. The YouTube TV service doesn't use EME, no. And isn't terribly relevant to this thread either.
    - syshum 9y ago
      1. It is relevant because the claim was "YouTube does not use it" not that "most of youtube does not use it" 2. I firmly believe now that EME is standard YouTube will start using it, especially as they start rejecting independent creators in favor of more High Budget Commerical Creators and Tradional media whom they already show a preference for. These Companies will demand it just like the big Movie Studios 3. I am not subscribed to YouTube TV service so I can not confirm but do you have a source or technical document showing they do not. I would be shocked if they were allowed to get Commercial deals to carry main stream cable channels and stream then in the clear with no copy protection.
- jhasse 9y ago
  YouTube does use EME for paid content. Also you have to use a native app for Netflix and if they wanted to, they could also stop supporting Amazon devices at any time. There wouldn't even be a work-around thanks to EME.

niceperson 9y ago

None of it is free, you know. Saying "It's not supposed to be this way" isn't an argument.

ptero 9y ago

I agree. To narrow it down, IMO the main problem is breaking interoperability (on both sides). Web is built on open standards to ensure diverse systems can talk to each other. As long as systems comply with well defined interfaces they should be able to communicate. A company can introduce additional constraints on top to limit access. However this should still be done based on standards. Using a variety of derived properties to block specific device type is evil in my book. My 2c.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

There's a huge irony that Google, who has spent millions of dollars investing in net neutrality supporting organizations and astroturfing 'grassroots' efforts to allegedly protect the open web is blocking users from a website based on the device accessing it for anticompetitive business reasons.

em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
Google Fiber did a similar thing: they initially banned home servers, which was later relaxed a bit to only ban commercial home servers, but regardless it shows Google's hypocrisy regarding neutrality. (Sure they had some rationalization that since they were prohibiting something entirely it wasn't really interfering with net neutrality.)
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  As a particular hilarity, Google Fiber has repeatedly dodged being classified as a telecom so that it isn't subject to the regulations Comcast and Verizon are.

DerfNet 9y ago

I mean, instead of buy proprietary devices like Fire Sticks and Chromecasts, you could just connect a computer to your TV, have it all, and call it a day. Of course, "all" does not include 1080p playback on Netflix unless you use Edge or Safari