4 ms·

Doesn't work in Safari. Doesn't work in Firefox. Doesn't work in Edge. I don't want to be unreasonable, but Google used to at least generally support the idea

Doesn't work in Safari. Doesn't work in Firefox. Doesn't work in Edge. I don't want to be unreasonable, but Google used to at least generally support the idea of the open web. There are a bunch of different UAs out there; while I accept it's more challenging to support some than others, it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect a product launch from a large-scale web company should at the very least give us an error message. The web is deteriorating right in front of us, and a big contributor to that is Google's continued failure to realise that the web isn't all-Chrome, all the time. The attitude displayed here—a minor thing when compared to the overall problem—has strengthened my resolve to avoid Chrome at all costs.

rhizome 9y ago
Google used to at least generally support the idea of the open web Yes, but history teaches us that they are terrible at product management. I mean, they could at least just call it "Chrome TTS" or something until they put the whole thing together.
- thesandlord 9y ago
  The demo might only work in Chrome, but the API is just a standard REST API. Most people will be using this API on the server side to generate an MP3 which is streamed to the user. Chrome actually has its own TTS engine (as does FF, Safari, etc), though the quality obviously isn't as good. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/SpeechSynthesis https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/SpeechSynth... (I work for GCP)
  - matthewmacleod 9y ago
    As I understand it, Chrome does indeed use the Google cloud platform to do its speech synthesis behind the scenes – I suppose we'll see improvements in the quality of those voices soon, too.
- matthewmacleod 9y ago
  That's not entirely fair – it does work over relatively standard protocols behind the scenes. I'm just annoyed at the lack of care displayed here.
Gatsky 9y ago
Come on now, it's a cloud machine learning product, you can access it using purely open source tools all running on an open source operating system if you like. No need to pronounce doom because the demo doesn't work in your browser.
- matthewmacleod 9y ago
  I appreciate the quality of the offering, and indeed I'm excited because I am currently building a product that uses Google's synthesis! But it's the lack of care displayed here that's really disappointing. It's like nobody involved with this demo went "Hey, maybe people aren't using Chrome and we should at least not totally fail when that happens". It's disappointing; as a mostly front-end dev at a small company, I put a lot of time into making sure that things work cross-platform, even if I don't always get it right. It's disappointing that Google's culture doesn't rate that highly enough.
  - StavrosK 9y ago
    The solution is simple: Get as many people as you can to migrate to Firefox!
    - paulryanrogers 9y ago
      Then it works in two browsers: most popular and their own. Ideally there would be such a large number of in-use standards compliant browsers that companies had to comply.
      - matthewmacleod 9y ago
        There are four or five out there. I would expect the average modern web app to be compatible with Chrome, Safari, Firefox, Edge, and possibly IE11 if that’s appropriate for the particular use case.
      - StavrosK 9y ago
        The problem isn't so much that browser vendors don't adhere to standards, it's that they make their own additional features and then make webpages that work with those. Having standards won't do anything for that, unless the standard says "you must not implement extra functionality".
shdh 9y ago
Just needs a WebComponents polyfill. Other browser vendors don't support WebComponents out of the box (yet).
halfteatree 9y ago
> I don't want to be unreasonable, but Google used to at least generally support the idea of the open web. This is a Machine Learning product, I don't think anyone at Google, at least as part of this team, is trying to "get you" or destroy the open web or something. This isn't even a case of Google using something non-standard -- WebComponents is part of the standard, you can even see it in Mozilla's MDN [0]. Firefox, Safari, Edge, et al simply haven't implemented it yet (or landed in stable). Is that somehow also Chrome's fault? Filing a bug report is good, but ranting on HN about how this is a sign of Google trying to steal the open Internet is at best unnecessary, and absolutely unreasonable. Coincidently, I'm working on an application that uses complicated SVG with CSS animations, and I've spent a ton of time optimizing it. I've never tested it outside of Chrome before today. To my surprise, while everything works fast in Chrome, in Safari it's bearable, but in FF it's simply too laggy to use. Now, I probably won't ever get to fix the performance issues in FF and Safari, simply because I don't have the time. Am I also out there trying to destroy the open web? Maybe I'm just bad, not evil. [0]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Web_Components https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Web_Components
- manigandham 9y ago
  True, but clearly the marketing page of a feature service for a major cloud vendor should be accessible to as many as possible. There's no real reason something as simple as an audio player to play samples doesn't work well on all browsers.
- matthewmacleod 9y ago
  No, I don’t agree with you. This is a basic audio playback widget on the web. The web is nominally an open platform. Whichever team built this decided to build it in a way that it would only support Google’s own web browser. It’s not unreasonable to expect a massive web company to build cross-browser support for their user-facing demos, especially in cases where there is obviously no reason that it needs to be incompatible. Like I said, I appreciate that building cross-browser is not always possible. The difference between you and Google is that you aren’t one of the largest companies in the world, and you don’t publish your own browser.

rhizome 9y ago

Google used to at least generally support the idea of the open web Yes, but history teaches us that they are terrible at product management. I mean, they could at least just call it "Chrome TTS" or something until they put the whole thing together.

thesandlord 9y ago
The demo might only work in Chrome, but the API is just a standard REST API. Most people will be using this API on the server side to generate an MP3 which is streamed to the user. Chrome actually has its own TTS engine (as does FF, Safari, etc), though the quality obviously isn't as good. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/SpeechSynthesis https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/SpeechSynth... (I work for GCP)
- matthewmacleod 9y ago
  As I understand it, Chrome does indeed use the Google cloud platform to do its speech synthesis behind the scenes – I suppose we'll see improvements in the quality of those voices soon, too.
matthewmacleod 9y ago
That's not entirely fair – it does work over relatively standard protocols behind the scenes. I'm just annoyed at the lack of care displayed here.

Gatsky 9y ago

Come on now, it's a cloud machine learning product, you can access it using purely open source tools all running on an open source operating system if you like. No need to pronounce doom because the demo doesn't work in your browser.

matthewmacleod 9y ago
I appreciate the quality of the offering, and indeed I'm excited because I am currently building a product that uses Google's synthesis! But it's the lack of care displayed here that's really disappointing. It's like nobody involved with this demo went "Hey, maybe people aren't using Chrome and we should at least not totally fail when that happens". It's disappointing; as a mostly front-end dev at a small company, I put a lot of time into making sure that things work cross-platform, even if I don't always get it right. It's disappointing that Google's culture doesn't rate that highly enough.
- StavrosK 9y ago
  The solution is simple: Get as many people as you can to migrate to Firefox!
  - paulryanrogers 9y ago
    Then it works in two browsers: most popular and their own. Ideally there would be such a large number of in-use standards compliant browsers that companies had to comply.
    - matthewmacleod 9y ago
      There are four or five out there. I would expect the average modern web app to be compatible with Chrome, Safari, Firefox, Edge, and possibly IE11 if that’s appropriate for the particular use case.
    - StavrosK 9y ago
      The problem isn't so much that browser vendors don't adhere to standards, it's that they make their own additional features and then make webpages that work with those. Having standards won't do anything for that, unless the standard says "you must not implement extra functionality".

shdh 9y ago

Just needs a WebComponents polyfill. Other browser vendors don't support WebComponents out of the box (yet).

halfteatree 9y ago

> I don't want to be unreasonable, but Google used to at least generally support the idea of the open web. This is a Machine Learning product, I don't think anyone at Google, at least as part of this team, is trying to "get you" or destroy the open web or something. This isn't even a case of Google using something non-standard -- WebComponents is part of the standard, you can even see it in Mozilla's MDN [0]. Firefox, Safari, Edge, et al simply haven't implemented it yet (or landed in stable). Is that somehow also Chrome's fault? Filing a bug report is good, but ranting on HN about how this is a sign of Google trying to steal the open Internet is at best unnecessary, and absolutely unreasonable. Coincidently, I'm working on an application that uses complicated SVG with CSS animations, and I've spent a ton of time optimizing it. I've never tested it outside of Chrome before today. To my surprise, while everything works fast in Chrome, in Safari it's bearable, but in FF it's simply too laggy to use. Now, I probably won't ever get to fix the performance issues in FF and Safari, simply because I don't have the time. Am I also out there trying to destroy the open web? Maybe I'm just bad, not evil. [0]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Web_Components https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Web_Components

manigandham 9y ago
True, but clearly the marketing page of a feature service for a major cloud vendor should be accessible to as many as possible. There's no real reason something as simple as an audio player to play samples doesn't work well on all browsers.
matthewmacleod 9y ago
No, I don’t agree with you. This is a basic audio playback widget on the web. The web is nominally an open platform. Whichever team built this decided to build it in a way that it would only support Google’s own web browser. It’s not unreasonable to expect a massive web company to build cross-browser support for their user-facing demos, especially in cases where there is obviously no reason that it needs to be incompatible. Like I said, I appreciate that building cross-browser is not always possible. The difference between you and Google is that you aren’t one of the largest companies in the world, and you don’t publish your own browser.