4 ms·

I won't reply on Twitter, but the first response I see is: "You're attacking a website that only supports Chrome because it is the only browser that supports th

I won't reply on Twitter, but the first response I see is: "You're attacking a website that only supports Chrome because it is the only browser that supports the API that its entire product is based around" Kind of misses the point, because the same thing could have been said for every "IE Only" website back in the day. Microsoft was notorious for "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish," and a lot of the incompatibility back then was them Extending the web with things like ActiveX. The only real difference now is that Google effectively took over the web standards bodies, so they can point to the W3C and say, "But this is standard!" and conveniently not mention that they were the one who wrote the "standard" and forced it through the standards process. Edit: On second thought, another huge difference now is that most web developers are dependent on Google, either directly with advertising, or indirectly via search results, and I bet a lot of devs are worried about stirring up too much trouble and getting cut out. That may not come into play here, but it's definitely been an issue with things like AMP.

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
As another Twitter reply said, this was a nonprofit product created by one guy to make video content on the web more accessible, and this jerk goes on to complain that "You're turning the web into IE again". That's nonsense.
- d3nj4l 6y ago
  Why does the supposed intention of building the software matter? What difference does it make that this website is for a "good purpose"? At any rate, the OP deliberately blocked out the name of the service, and repeatedly said they meant this as a general point instead of about the particular service. This kind of comment seems to me more like people trying to deflect from the actual issue.
  - ralphstodomingo 6y ago
    I beg to disagree. The OP should have picked a better example since they were making a sweeping generalization. If it was so, that Chrome has been turned to IE, then he'd be able to find more examples to support it. You're giving the OP too much credit when the burden of the proof lies with the accuser.
    - solvorn 6y ago
      Ackshually
- pas 6y ago
  It's not nonsense. Market forces are made up of locally sane choices (but in a usually orthogonal aspect). Sure, it's good intentioned, but still, it pushes the needle a tiny bit, and all those add up. Just the fact that the developer thought, okay, sure we'll just require Chrome, no biggie, instead of providing something as a browser extension or a desktop thing means that either a) for some people the functionality that this thing offers is king, so they would install even Baidu Browser too if they could just to get this functionality, or b) Chrome's market share is so dominant, that ignoring other browsers is a non-issue. And of course Google has vast resources to win the feature war. This alone means a lot of niche products will be Chrome only. And then others can play catch-up if they want, but the first mover advantage is very big when setting web quasi-standards.
  - ironmagma 6y ago
    Is there something preventing Firefox or Edge from adopting this API? This is how browser APIs have worked for many years. If someone doesn’t like that their browser doesn’t support speech recognition, isn’t the main party under fire the browser vendor who hasn’t prioritized the work?
    - pas 6y ago
      I have no idea, but the Firefox dev teams are always behind the clock, so even if there's nothing conceptually blocking them, bandwidth is an issue.
throwaway2048 6y ago
A great example is AJAX was an ie6 only extension.
drewcoo 6y ago
On the first point, Google learned from Microsoft that they should make the standards instead of extending them. Extensions just lead to court dates. On the second point, a couple of decades ago, "open sores" were things you didn't talk about in polite company. Microsoft offered the dominant platforms on the insignificant web and also the incredibly important office apps and the only OS most people used. And this was before mobile was part of most people's lives. Today's FAANG was then's Microsoft.

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago

As another Twitter reply said, this was a nonprofit product created by one guy to make video content on the web more accessible, and this jerk goes on to complain that "You're turning the web into IE again". That's nonsense.

d3nj4l 6y ago
Why does the supposed intention of building the software matter? What difference does it make that this website is for a "good purpose"? At any rate, the OP deliberately blocked out the name of the service, and repeatedly said they meant this as a general point instead of about the particular service. This kind of comment seems to me more like people trying to deflect from the actual issue.
- ralphstodomingo 6y ago
  I beg to disagree. The OP should have picked a better example since they were making a sweeping generalization. If it was so, that Chrome has been turned to IE, then he'd be able to find more examples to support it. You're giving the OP too much credit when the burden of the proof lies with the accuser.
  - solvorn 6y ago
    Ackshually
pas 6y ago
It's not nonsense. Market forces are made up of locally sane choices (but in a usually orthogonal aspect). Sure, it's good intentioned, but still, it pushes the needle a tiny bit, and all those add up. Just the fact that the developer thought, okay, sure we'll just require Chrome, no biggie, instead of providing something as a browser extension or a desktop thing means that either a) for some people the functionality that this thing offers is king, so they would install even Baidu Browser too if they could just to get this functionality, or b) Chrome's market share is so dominant, that ignoring other browsers is a non-issue. And of course Google has vast resources to win the feature war. This alone means a lot of niche products will be Chrome only. And then others can play catch-up if they want, but the first mover advantage is very big when setting web quasi-standards.
- ironmagma 6y ago
  Is there something preventing Firefox or Edge from adopting this API? This is how browser APIs have worked for many years. If someone doesn’t like that their browser doesn’t support speech recognition, isn’t the main party under fire the browser vendor who hasn’t prioritized the work?
  - pas 6y ago
    I have no idea, but the Firefox dev teams are always behind the clock, so even if there's nothing conceptually blocking them, bandwidth is an issue.

throwaway2048 6y ago

A great example is AJAX was an ie6 only extension.

drewcoo 6y ago

On the first point, Google learned from Microsoft that they should make the standards instead of extending them. Extensions just lead to court dates. On the second point, a couple of decades ago, "open sores" were things you didn't talk about in polite company. Microsoft offered the dominant platforms on the insignificant web and also the incredibly important office apps and the only OS most people used. And this was before mobile was part of most people's lives. Today's FAANG was then's Microsoft.