5 ms·

This seems pretty unequivocal then- they're clearly using this to provide additional functionality to their own applications (at least Meet) that other companie

by tedivm 2y ago

This seems pretty unequivocal then- they're clearly using this to provide additional functionality to their own applications (at least Meet) that other companies who don't control the browser can't match.

filoleg 2y ago
This is not the case. That API is available to any extensions for chrome. Including those made by other companies that don’t control the browser. Here[0] are the docs for the specific one discussed above, for example. 0. https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/api/system/cpu https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/api/s...
- upwardbound 2y ago
  Other extensions, not other websites. This functionality is a feature of the Google Meet website that other video conferencing websites cannot offer.
  - filoleg 2y ago
    They can, if those other websites provide an accompanying extension for it. Are you aware that the Zoom website can use the Zoom extension to have that exact same type of interactions? In fact, that’s literally how other videoconferencing websites operate and have been since forever (the dreaded cisco webex extension comes to mind). The only difference is that GMeet can be counted as a part of the browser itself, so it requires no additional extension.
    - wobfan 2y ago
      > GMeet can be counted as a part of the browser itself, so it requires no additional extension. That is the enraging part. If I install extensions, I am aware that they could send information and diagnostic stuff. Plain websites shouldn't be able to. Also (not 100% sure here), afaik Firefox tells me which information the extension gets, so there's even more awareness about the information sent. Also, which VC websites are you talking about? Zoom doesn't need a extension, BigBlueButton and Jitsy don't need a extension, afaik Teams also doesn't need it. People using WebEx certainly don't care about privacy so actually I would leave that out. (Googled it, since I never use it: apparently WebEx also doesn't use an extension anymore, although I remember the old plugin that they required some time ago, that barely worked at all)
    - upwardbound 2y ago
      > GMeet can be counted as a part of the browser itself That's the part that is arguably an antitrust violation. See e.g. https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsofts-browser-bundling-battle-is-over-for-this-decade-at-least/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsofts-browser-bundling-ba...
    - hot_gril 2y ago
      Cisco is the only recent-ish video chat app I can think of that has required an extension. The other I can remember is original Hangouts about a decade ago, cause at the time WebRTC wasn't commonly supported. Chrome was the only browser that didn't need an extension for that, but you know what, other VC apps were free to use Chrome's early WebRTC features too, and they later did.
vineyardmike 2y ago
Unequivocally, why can’t other video chat companies provide their own browser? They could presumably fork chromium and change a single string (if it’s really just “*.google.com”). Obviously that’d go nowhere and no one would use it, but I can’t imagine this really matters to any competitor anywhere.
- bl4kers 2y ago
  Why stop there? Why can’t other video chat companies provide me their own operating system? A computer?
  - danShumway 2y ago
    Think even bigger, why not reinvent the wheel every time every product is developed? Why have a common platform for anything? If you think about it, what value is there in all these companies using the same roads to ship products? Can't they build their own? And is it really important that every business accept the same currency? Yes, platform independence and shared universal access to common standards that consumers can consistently trust to provide similar experiences across products and ecosystems does admittedly reduce wasted development resources, increase competition, and makes the market more accessible to new businesses. And sure, I guess technically it reduces consumer confusion, and sure it benefits consumers by making products and services more interoperable. But who are we to say that any of that is good? /s

by tedivm 2y ago

filoleg 2y ago

This is not the case. That API is available to any extensions for chrome. Including those made by other companies that don’t control the browser. Here[0] are the docs for the specific one discussed above, for example. 0. https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/api/system/cpu https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/api/s...

upwardbound 2y ago
Other extensions, not other websites. This functionality is a feature of the Google Meet website that other video conferencing websites cannot offer.
- filoleg 2y ago
  They can, if those other websites provide an accompanying extension for it. Are you aware that the Zoom website can use the Zoom extension to have that exact same type of interactions? In fact, that’s literally how other videoconferencing websites operate and have been since forever (the dreaded cisco webex extension comes to mind). The only difference is that GMeet can be counted as a part of the browser itself, so it requires no additional extension.
  - wobfan 2y ago
    > GMeet can be counted as a part of the browser itself, so it requires no additional extension. That is the enraging part. If I install extensions, I am aware that they could send information and diagnostic stuff. Plain websites shouldn't be able to. Also (not 100% sure here), afaik Firefox tells me which information the extension gets, so there's even more awareness about the information sent. Also, which VC websites are you talking about? Zoom doesn't need a extension, BigBlueButton and Jitsy don't need a extension, afaik Teams also doesn't need it. People using WebEx certainly don't care about privacy so actually I would leave that out. (Googled it, since I never use it: apparently WebEx also doesn't use an extension anymore, although I remember the old plugin that they required some time ago, that barely worked at all)
  - upwardbound 2y ago
    > GMeet can be counted as a part of the browser itself That's the part that is arguably an antitrust violation. See e.g. https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsofts-browser-bundling-battle-is-over-for-this-decade-at-least/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsofts-browser-bundling-ba...
  - hot_gril 2y ago
    Cisco is the only recent-ish video chat app I can think of that has required an extension. The other I can remember is original Hangouts about a decade ago, cause at the time WebRTC wasn't commonly supported. Chrome was the only browser that didn't need an extension for that, but you know what, other VC apps were free to use Chrome's early WebRTC features too, and they later did.

vineyardmike 2y ago

Unequivocally, why can’t other video chat companies provide their own browser? They could presumably fork chromium and change a single string (if it’s really just “*.google.com”). Obviously that’d go nowhere and no one would use it, but I can’t imagine this really matters to any competitor anywhere.

bl4kers 2y ago
Why stop there? Why can’t other video chat companies provide me their own operating system? A computer?
- danShumway 2y ago
  Think even bigger, why not reinvent the wheel every time every product is developed? Why have a common platform for anything? If you think about it, what value is there in all these companies using the same roads to ship products? Can't they build their own? And is it really important that every business accept the same currency? Yes, platform independence and shared universal access to common standards that consumers can consistently trust to provide similar experiences across products and ecosystems does admittedly reduce wasted development resources, increase competition, and makes the market more accessible to new businesses. And sure, I guess technically it reduces consumer confusion, and sure it benefits consumers by making products and services more interoperable. But who are we to say that any of that is good? /s