4 ms·
I'd say at this point youtube has so much more market capture than any non-chrome browser, they probably could just say "get Chrome or gtfo" and not even notice
by jojobas 3y ago
I'd say at this point youtube has so much more market capture than any non-chrome browser, they probably could just say "get Chrome or gtfo" and not even notice the audience dip.
- dredmorbius 3y agoiPhone / iOS is Safari-only. That's a non-negligible market segment. And an affluent one.
- flangola7 3y agoIt would break every service that uses embedded YouTube videos on custom viewers.
- Illotus 3y agoThis would basically guarantee that regulators would inevitably separate either Youtube or Chrome from Google.
- jeffparsons 3y agoI'd love to believe this, but said regulators don't seem particularly energetic these days.
- oefnak 3y agoIn the EU they are. Soon, chat apps are required to be able to connect to each other, thanks to the EU. Telegram <----> Signal <----> WhatsApp Freedom for the people instead of companies! That's why I prefer the EU over the US.
- anticensor 3y ago> Telegram <----> Signal <----> WhatsApp More like Telegram (non E2EE modes)<---->Discord<---->Guilded and Signal<---->Telegram (E2EE modes)<---->WhatsApp.
- Canada 3y agoThis isn't going to happen. It's not a good idea generally. It doesn't bring "freedom for the people" but instead completely undermines it. Such integration would break the security of Signal, rendering its existence moot. Take a few minutes to think about how it would have to be implemented on a technical level.
- RugnirViking 3y agoI'm not sure I understand? all three of those apps are end-to-end encrypted. Surely the recipient's phone has the key to decode and the company does not?
- veave 3y agoTelegram is not end-to-end encrypted.
- Canada 3y agoFirst of all, Telegram is not end to end encrypted. It has limited support for end to end encryption of direct messages only. There is zero support for E2E of groups, and zero support for E2E in a multiclient context, which makes the feature almost completely useless, and indeed, almost nobody uses it and I don't think even 1% of telegram users have ever used it or even know how to use it. Integrating either Signal or WhatsApp clients with Telegram would to tantamount to a backdoor, or would require a redesign of Telegram so drastic that would upset its users. A perfect analogy is integrating WhatsApp and Twitter because Telegram is actually more similar to Twitter than it is to WhatsApp. But even integrating Signal and WhatsApp which now share a similar encryption scheme and user ID isn't a good idea: Most Signal users don't want any interaction either directly or indirectly with WhatsApp. The two programs have completely different group implementations: WhatsApp keeps all the metadata server side, whereas Signal handles all of that client side with the server acting as a dumb router of opaque messages that wrap the group state updates. How would those two systems be reconciled? Would Signal have to accept WhatsApp users joining its group and then just leak all of the group metadata to WhatsApp servers for compatibility? Would WhatsApp have to re-write its entire service to be compatible with Signal's group semantics and see to it that all billion users are fully upgraded or kick them off the service? These issues go on and on and on, and they increase exponentially the more messaging systems you try to add. The whole idea is just ridiculous.
- jojobas 3y agoI would doubt it. Websites are essentially software distributed on demand, there is no requirement to distribute your software for any particular platform (browser). If Apple can make their software (i.e. Final Cut or Logic) exclusive to Apple devices, so can Google.
- bippihippi1 3y agoeven 1% of a billion dollars is a lot of money
- simonh 3y ago$10 million? That's maybe 20 developers for a year, including costs of employment, office space, IT services, etc. Less that 1% of Youtube's employees. Chump change.