3 ms·

Here's a twitter thread worth reading, from the former VP of the Firefox group: https://twitter.com/johnath/status/1116871238922776576 https://twitter.com/johna

Here's a twitter thread worth reading, from the former VP of the Firefox group: https://twitter.com/johnath/status/1116871238922776576 https://twitter.com/johnath/status/1116871238922776576 It's easy to make proposals that incrementally increase user security while simultaneously increasing one's own ability to consolidate and exploit user data. Technical appeal needs to be evaluated with a simultaneous critical eye to social impact (QUIC is a perfect example -- it outcompetes TCP on an equivalent link, and falls apart over variable-latency or highly unreliable connections, like those that exist in developing nations -- but of course, Google doesn't care about those audiences).

boring_twenties 7y ago
Forget about developing nations, there are plenty of parts of the US where mobile Internet is unreliable or altogether unavailable (I live in Utah, ask me how I know). Google doesn't even care if you're a paying customer -- they sell phones without expandable storage with the explanation that customers should just use the cloud (i.e., Google Drive) instead. Laughable.
- cloudwalking 7y ago
  Then buy a phone with expandable storage, that does run Google's operating system. That's the beauty of Google -- don't like their hardware? Buy one of the hundred other models.
  - boring_twenties 7y ago
    Damn, why didn't I think of that? It was just an example in support of the point made in the parent: as far as Google is concerned, the only people that matter are ones with unlimited, fast and reliable Internet access at all times without exception. If you thought I was facing some kind of dilemma regarding whether or not to buy a phone that is useless half the time I leave my house, then thank you, but that's not the case.
deadmutex 7y ago
> developing nations -- but of course, Google doesn't care about those audiences Do you have a citation for your claims? There is plenty of evidence to the contrary: https://www.blog.google/technology/next-billion-users/ https://www.blog.google/technology/next-billion-users/ .
- dogecoinbase 7y ago
  Yes, they designed a protocol which assumes low-latency highly reliable connections, which developing nations do not have. I care about what people _do_, not what they say in their PR blogs. Also, wow, your comment history is just jam-packed with defending Google. Just a fan? Or do you still work at Youtube (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13261130 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13261130) ?
  - deadmutex 7y ago
    I tend to call people out when they make claims that are not accurate. > I care about what people _do_, not what they say in their PR blogs. Did you read the blog? It's not just words, they are talking about products they have shipped. E.g. Files Go. You can believe what you want, but if you're going to big claims, you should back those up with credible data.
    - dogecoinbase 7y ago
      https://blog.apnic.net/2018/01/29/measuring-quic-vs-tcp-mobile-desktop/ https://blog.apnic.net/2018/01/29/measuring-quic-vs-tcp-mobi... Further, we found that QUIC consumes significantly more than its fair share of bottleneck bandwidth when competing with TCP flows, which can be detrimental to a wide range of applications. https://blog.codavel.com/quic-vs-tcptls-and-why-quic-is-not-the-next-big-thing https://blog.codavel.com/quic-vs-tcptls-and-why-quic-is-not-... QUIC is at its essence an ARQ protocol, i.e. feedbacks are required to recover from packet losses. And this design choice then leads to inefficiencies when evaluating link conditions. And, in links where latency and losses are unstable, these limitations lead to a significant performance loss. if you're going to big claims, you should back those up with credible data. I couldn't agree more. Please point to the credible data on the page you referenced: https://www.blog.google/technology/next-billion-users/files-by-google/ https://www.blog.google/technology/next-billion-users/files-...

boring_twenties 7y ago

Forget about developing nations, there are plenty of parts of the US where mobile Internet is unreliable or altogether unavailable (I live in Utah, ask me how I know). Google doesn't even care if you're a paying customer -- they sell phones without expandable storage with the explanation that customers should just use the cloud (i.e., Google Drive) instead. Laughable.

cloudwalking 7y ago
Then buy a phone with expandable storage, that does run Google's operating system. That's the beauty of Google -- don't like their hardware? Buy one of the hundred other models.
- boring_twenties 7y ago
  Damn, why didn't I think of that? It was just an example in support of the point made in the parent: as far as Google is concerned, the only people that matter are ones with unlimited, fast and reliable Internet access at all times without exception. If you thought I was facing some kind of dilemma regarding whether or not to buy a phone that is useless half the time I leave my house, then thank you, but that's not the case.

deadmutex 7y ago

> developing nations -- but of course, Google doesn't care about those audiences Do you have a citation for your claims? There is plenty of evidence to the contrary: https://www.blog.google/technology/next-billion-users/ https://www.blog.google/technology/next-billion-users/ .

dogecoinbase 7y ago
Yes, they designed a protocol which assumes low-latency highly reliable connections, which developing nations do not have. I care about what people _do_, not what they say in their PR blogs. Also, wow, your comment history is just jam-packed with defending Google. Just a fan? Or do you still work at Youtube (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13261130 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13261130) ?
- deadmutex 7y ago
  I tend to call people out when they make claims that are not accurate. > I care about what people _do_, not what they say in their PR blogs. Did you read the blog? It's not just words, they are talking about products they have shipped. E.g. Files Go. You can believe what you want, but if you're going to big claims, you should back those up with credible data.
  - dogecoinbase 7y ago
    https://blog.apnic.net/2018/01/29/measuring-quic-vs-tcp-mobile-desktop/ https://blog.apnic.net/2018/01/29/measuring-quic-vs-tcp-mobi... Further, we found that QUIC consumes significantly more than its fair share of bottleneck bandwidth when competing with TCP flows, which can be detrimental to a wide range of applications. https://blog.codavel.com/quic-vs-tcptls-and-why-quic-is-not-the-next-big-thing https://blog.codavel.com/quic-vs-tcptls-and-why-quic-is-not-... QUIC is at its essence an ARQ protocol, i.e. feedbacks are required to recover from packet losses. And this design choice then leads to inefficiencies when evaluating link conditions. And, in links where latency and losses are unstable, these limitations lead to a significant performance loss. if you're going to big claims, you should back those up with credible data. I couldn't agree more. Please point to the credible data on the page you referenced: https://www.blog.google/technology/next-billion-users/files-by-google/ https://www.blog.google/technology/next-billion-users/files-...