6 ms·

Wow talk about revisionism! Chrome was meant as a hedge against IE and lesser so against Firefox. Microsoft owned the desktop with Windows and could easily shu

Wow talk about revisionism! Chrome was meant as a hedge against IE and lesser so against Firefox. Microsoft owned the desktop with Windows and could easily shut Google out. See the reason surrounding the creation of the Google toolbar. Similarly Android is a hedge against IOS and mobile search.

0xy 6y ago
IE had bad standards support and bad defaults, while Chrome will actively track you on practically every site by sending an identifier to a whitelist including DoubleClick. Would you be defending it if it was called "DoubleClick Browser"? Google wants to secure the status quo with their own browser. What is the status quo? Massive spying, surveillance and tracking. This is why Safari and Firefox implemented strict measures against third-party cookies which Chrome watered down until it was practically useless or didn't implement at all. If Chrome is such an open and independent project, what do you think are the chances of a PR being approved that removed DoubleClick from the tracking header whitelist?
- mehrdadn 6y ago
  Are you talking about Chrome or Chromium?
  - 0xy 6y ago
    Chromium, but they're effectively the same. The average user doesn't know what Chromium is. https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/e51dcb0c148a1b0ab0080808d8d1b914d02f6057/chrome/browser/metrics/variations/variations_http_header_provider.cc https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/e51dcb0c148...
    - mehrdadn 6y ago
      I see, thanks. I'm looking at that source and confused what it's actually doing though. What is the "tracking" aspect? I see ShouldAppendHeaders() returns true on doubleclick.net, but on the face of it, it seems to just be saying: "Should we send experimental headers to this URL? If it's doubleclick.net, then yes." But they claim [1] this X-Client-Data header is used for experimenting with Chrome, not for tracking. But you're claiming they're using it for tracking, so you're claiming they're lying... which I mean is certainly possible, but I see no evidence for it. What's your basis for claiming they're lying with such certainty? [1] https://9to5google.com/2020/02/06/google-chrome-x-client-data-tracking/ https://9to5google.com/2020/02/06/google-chrome-x-client-dat...
      - 0xy 6y ago
        Because the statement is deliberately ambiguous, and doesn't say they do not use it for tracking. "The X-Client-Data header is used to help Chrome test new features before rolling them out to all users. The information included in this header reflects the variations, or new feature trials, in which an installation of Chrome is currently enrolled. This information helps us measure server-side metrics for large groups of installations; it is not used to identify or track individual users." Okay, so they're saying it is not currently being used to track individual users. This means they can: - Track individual users in the future. - Track devices at any time, for differentiation of individual profiles. - Track installs at any time. - Derive information about the individual using this data (for example how often they update their browser, how often they use that device etc) All of those things are extremely valuable from a data standpoint. Unless Google explicitly stated that it was not being used to track, differentiate or profile users or devices and will not be used for that purpose in the future, it's extremely suspicious. Most ad networks collect bulk information from browsers to fingerprint devices and users. Google has a step up on the competitor networks because they own the browser. Do not forget Google was sued just this month for tracking users while they were using incognito mode.
        mehrdadn 6y ago
        I have no clue if they're lying or not, and I'm open to the possibility that they are, but you're not really making a good case for it here. It's pretty disingenuous to claim they track users and base it on lack of mathematically airtight evidence that they don't. That's not how accusations are supposed to work, right? I might as well claim you're a burglar because there's nothing to indicate you're not one. If you want to say you think they're tracking people because of reasons X/Y/Z, or that what they're doing looks suspicious, that's a lot better of an argument. But to claim they are with no evidence of it actually happening is really pushing it.
        0xy 6y ago
        It's an advertising company making a statement about a "feature" in their browser that phones home to advertising domains with information that could be used for tracking purposes. You don't think that deserves extreme scrutiny? Do you think that statement was made by a random developer or filtered through 100 PR and legal people? Every single word of that statement was carefully crafted and constructed. Knowing that, why is it so ambiguous?
- nl 6y ago
  You claimed: > Chrome was always a trojan horse to co-opt web standards for their own purposes That wasn't the case. Google was concerned about Microsoft's ability to lock them out, and the lack of high quality browsers on non-Windows platforms.
  - kevingadd 6y ago
    Chrome was great (and offered some unique advantages at the time), but it's absurd to say there weren't high quality browsers on non-Windows platforms. Firefox was fine, and WebKit was good enough for Google to decide to adopt it. They raised the bar by throwing engineering muscle at the problem but there was nothing "low quality" about Safari, Opera or Firefox at the time.
    - dao- 6y ago
      A good part of the initial engineering muscle came from Mozilla. Google used to pay people working on Firefox, including the Firefox lead developer Ben Goodger, but pulled them to work on Chrome instead. So they already had a system set up for moving the web forward, but clearly they wanted more than that.
- bawolff 6y ago
  DoubleClick is owned by google. Seems reasonable enough that its one of the run experiments domains.
boomboomsubban 6y ago
Android was being developed before IOS, and had a prototype phone in 2006. If anything, Windows Mobile was probably what they feared.
- distances 6y ago
  Windows Mobile was as good as dead on most markets. If anything, the competition was against Symbian, and to a lesser extent against Blackberry.
  - Intermernet 6y ago
    I did a tiny bit of development on the very last version of symbian and was disappointed that it didn't get any support. It got a lot of things wrong, but it also got a lot right. Could've been a contender imo.
vhold 6y ago
Yes and no. If Google only wanted to hedge against IE they could have just contributed to Mozilla/Firefox. They clearly also wanted total control.
- dao- 6y ago
  In fact they did contribute to Firefox by paying engineers like Ben Goodger and Seth Spitzer, but clearly they weren't happy with that level of control. Goodger was lead developer for Firefox. They pulled all those people to work on Chrome instead, a step that immediately hurt Mozilla.
- 0xy 6y ago
  If Google wanted to support open standards and reduce reliance on IE, they wouldn't have targeted Firefox customers with Chrome ads on YouTube and Google aggressively. Now, Firefox and Safari will protect customers against tracking (measures against third-party cookies) while Chrome won't do anything -- because that's where the cash is.
josefx 6y ago
> ! Chrome was meant as a hedge against IE and lesser so against Firefox. IE was steadily loosing ground to Firefox years before Chrome came around. You want to claim that Google feared the half starved stepchild that was IE more than the add blocking enabled Firefox that was eating up market share left and right? > Microsoft owned the desktop with Windows and could easily shut Google out. How would building your own browser help with that? If Microsoft managed to build its walled garden (which it tried) it could have just shut Chrome out. Chrome is already entering its planed end game: Adblock APIs are crippled and third party cookies get the boot while all Google properties get an additional x-client-data identifier to uniquely identify its user.

0xy 6y ago

IE had bad standards support and bad defaults, while Chrome will actively track you on practically every site by sending an identifier to a whitelist including DoubleClick. Would you be defending it if it was called "DoubleClick Browser"? Google wants to secure the status quo with their own browser. What is the status quo? Massive spying, surveillance and tracking. This is why Safari and Firefox implemented strict measures against third-party cookies which Chrome watered down until it was practically useless or didn't implement at all. If Chrome is such an open and independent project, what do you think are the chances of a PR being approved that removed DoubleClick from the tracking header whitelist?

mehrdadn 6y ago
Are you talking about Chrome or Chromium?
- 0xy 6y ago
  Chromium, but they're effectively the same. The average user doesn't know what Chromium is. https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/e51dcb0c148a1b0ab0080808d8d1b914d02f6057/chrome/browser/metrics/variations/variations_http_header_provider.cc https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/e51dcb0c148...
  - mehrdadn 6y ago
    I see, thanks. I'm looking at that source and confused what it's actually doing though. What is the "tracking" aspect? I see ShouldAppendHeaders() returns true on doubleclick.net, but on the face of it, it seems to just be saying: "Should we send experimental headers to this URL? If it's doubleclick.net, then yes." But they claim [1] this X-Client-Data header is used for experimenting with Chrome, not for tracking. But you're claiming they're using it for tracking, so you're claiming they're lying... which I mean is certainly possible, but I see no evidence for it. What's your basis for claiming they're lying with such certainty? [1] https://9to5google.com/2020/02/06/google-chrome-x-client-data-tracking/ https://9to5google.com/2020/02/06/google-chrome-x-client-dat...
    - 0xy 6y ago
      Because the statement is deliberately ambiguous, and doesn't say they do not use it for tracking. "The X-Client-Data header is used to help Chrome test new features before rolling them out to all users. The information included in this header reflects the variations, or new feature trials, in which an installation of Chrome is currently enrolled. This information helps us measure server-side metrics for large groups of installations; it is not used to identify or track individual users." Okay, so they're saying it is not currently being used to track individual users. This means they can: - Track individual users in the future. - Track devices at any time, for differentiation of individual profiles. - Track installs at any time. - Derive information about the individual using this data (for example how often they update their browser, how often they use that device etc) All of those things are extremely valuable from a data standpoint. Unless Google explicitly stated that it was not being used to track, differentiate or profile users or devices and will not be used for that purpose in the future, it's extremely suspicious. Most ad networks collect bulk information from browsers to fingerprint devices and users. Google has a step up on the competitor networks because they own the browser. Do not forget Google was sued just this month for tracking users while they were using incognito mode.
      - mehrdadn 6y ago
        I have no clue if they're lying or not, and I'm open to the possibility that they are, but you're not really making a good case for it here. It's pretty disingenuous to claim they track users and base it on lack of mathematically airtight evidence that they don't. That's not how accusations are supposed to work, right? I might as well claim you're a burglar because there's nothing to indicate you're not one. If you want to say you think they're tracking people because of reasons X/Y/Z, or that what they're doing looks suspicious, that's a lot better of an argument. But to claim they are with no evidence of it actually happening is really pushing it.
        0xy 6y ago
        It's an advertising company making a statement about a "feature" in their browser that phones home to advertising domains with information that could be used for tracking purposes. You don't think that deserves extreme scrutiny? Do you think that statement was made by a random developer or filtered through 100 PR and legal people? Every single word of that statement was carefully crafted and constructed. Knowing that, why is it so ambiguous?
nl 6y ago
You claimed: > Chrome was always a trojan horse to co-opt web standards for their own purposes That wasn't the case. Google was concerned about Microsoft's ability to lock them out, and the lack of high quality browsers on non-Windows platforms.
- kevingadd 6y ago
  Chrome was great (and offered some unique advantages at the time), but it's absurd to say there weren't high quality browsers on non-Windows platforms. Firefox was fine, and WebKit was good enough for Google to decide to adopt it. They raised the bar by throwing engineering muscle at the problem but there was nothing "low quality" about Safari, Opera or Firefox at the time.
  - dao- 6y ago
    A good part of the initial engineering muscle came from Mozilla. Google used to pay people working on Firefox, including the Firefox lead developer Ben Goodger, but pulled them to work on Chrome instead. So they already had a system set up for moving the web forward, but clearly they wanted more than that.
bawolff 6y ago
DoubleClick is owned by google. Seems reasonable enough that its one of the run experiments domains.

boomboomsubban 6y ago

Android was being developed before IOS, and had a prototype phone in 2006. If anything, Windows Mobile was probably what they feared.

distances 6y ago
Windows Mobile was as good as dead on most markets. If anything, the competition was against Symbian, and to a lesser extent against Blackberry.
- Intermernet 6y ago
  I did a tiny bit of development on the very last version of symbian and was disappointed that it didn't get any support. It got a lot of things wrong, but it also got a lot right. Could've been a contender imo.

vhold 6y ago

Yes and no. If Google only wanted to hedge against IE they could have just contributed to Mozilla/Firefox. They clearly also wanted total control.

dao- 6y ago
In fact they did contribute to Firefox by paying engineers like Ben Goodger and Seth Spitzer, but clearly they weren't happy with that level of control. Goodger was lead developer for Firefox. They pulled all those people to work on Chrome instead, a step that immediately hurt Mozilla.
0xy 6y ago
If Google wanted to support open standards and reduce reliance on IE, they wouldn't have targeted Firefox customers with Chrome ads on YouTube and Google aggressively. Now, Firefox and Safari will protect customers against tracking (measures against third-party cookies) while Chrome won't do anything -- because that's where the cash is.

josefx 6y ago

> ! Chrome was meant as a hedge against IE and lesser so against Firefox. IE was steadily loosing ground to Firefox years before Chrome came around. You want to claim that Google feared the half starved stepchild that was IE more than the add blocking enabled Firefox that was eating up market share left and right? > Microsoft owned the desktop with Windows and could easily shut Google out. How would building your own browser help with that? If Microsoft managed to build its walled garden (which it tried) it could have just shut Chrome out. Chrome is already entering its planed end game: Adblock APIs are crippled and third party cookies get the boot while all Google properties get an additional x-client-data identifier to uniquely identify its user.