Coder, Gamer, Car nut, Foodie, Geek.
2786 stories
·
3 followers

Google isn’t the company that we should have handed the Web over to

1 Comment
The word

Enlarge (credit: Aurich Lawson / Getty Images)

With Microsoft's decision to end development of its own Web rendering engine and switch to Chromium, control over the Web has functionally been ceded to Google. That's a worrying turn of events, given the company's past behavior.

Chrome itself has about 72 percent of the desktop-browser market share. Edge has about 4 percent. Opera, based on Chromium, has another 2 percent. The abandoned, no-longer-updated Internet Explorer has 5 percent, and Safari—only available on macOS—about 5 percent. When Microsoft's transition is complete, we're looking at a world where Chrome and Chrome-derivatives take about 80 percent of the market, with only Firefox, at 9 percent, actively maintained and available cross-platform.

The mobile story has stronger representation from Safari, thanks to the iPhone, but overall tells a similar story. Chrome has 53 percent directly, plus another 6 percent from Samsung Internet, another 5 percent from Opera, and another 2 percent from Android browser. Safari has about 22 percent, with the Chinese UC Browser sitting at about 9 percent. That's two-thirds of the mobile market going to Chrome and Chrome derivatives.

In terms of raw percentages, Google won't have quite as big a lock on the browser space as Microsoft did with Internet Explorer—Internet Explorer 6 peaked at around 80 percent, and all versions of Internet Explorer together may have reached as high as 95 percent. But Google's reach is, in practice, much greater: not only is the Web a substantially more important place today than it was in the early 2000s, but also there's a whole new mobile Web that operates in addition to the desktop Web.

Embrace and extend, Mountain View style

Google is already a company that exercises considerable influence over the direction of the Web's development. By owning both the most popular browser, Chrome, and some of the most-visited sites on the Web (in particular the namesake search engine, YouTube, and Gmail), Google has on a number of occasions used its might to deploy proprietary tech and put the rest of the industry in the position of having to catch up.

Back in 2009, Google introduced SPDY, a proprietary replacement for HTTP that addressed what Google saw as certain performance issues with existing HTTP/1.1. Google wasn't exactly wrong in its assessments, but SPDY was something of a unilateral act, with Google responsible for the design and functionality. SPDY was adopted by other browsers and Web servers over the next few years, and Google's protocol became widespread.

SPDY was subsequently used as the basis for HTTP/2, a major revision to the HTTP protocol developed by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the consortium that develops Internet protocols with members from across the industry. While SPDY did initiate the HTTP/2 work, the protocol finally delivered in 2015 was extensively modified from Google's initial offering.

The same story is repeating with HTTP/3. In 2012, Google announced a new experimental protocol, QUIC, intended again to address performance issues with existing HTTP/1.1 and HTTP/2. Google deployed QUIC, and Chrome would use QUIC when communicating with Google properties. Again, QUIC became the basis for IETF's HTTP development, and HTTP/3 uses a derivative of QUIC that's modified from and incompatible with Google's initial work.

It's not just HTTP that Google has repeatedly worked to replace. Google AMP ("Accelerated Mobile Pages") is a cut-down HTML combined with Google-supplied JavaScript designed to make mobile Web content load faster. This year, Google said that it would try to build AMP with Web standards and introduced a new governance model that gave the project much wider industry oversight.

Bad actor?

This is a company that, time and again, has tried to push the Web into a Google-controlled proprietary direction to improve the performance of Google's online services when used in conjunction with Google's browser, consolidating Google's market positioning and putting everyone else at a disadvantage. Each time, pushback has come from the wider community, and so far, at least, the result has been industry standards that wrest control from Google's hands. This action might already provoke doubts about the wisdom of handing effective control of the Web's direction to Google, but at least a case could be made that, in the end, the right thing was done.

But other situations have had less satisfactory resolutions. YouTube has been a particular source of problems. Google controls a large fraction of the Web's streaming video, and the company has, on a number of occasions, made changes to YouTube that make it worse in Edge and/or Firefox. Sometimes these changes have improved the site experience in Chrome, but even that isn't always the case.

A person claiming to be a former Edge developer has today described one such action. For no obvious reason, Google changed YouTube to add a hidden, empty HTML element that overlaid each video. This element disabled Edge's fastest, most efficient hardware accelerated video decoding. It hurt Edge's battery-life performance and took it below Chrome's. The change didn't improve Chrome's performance and didn't appear to serve any real purpose; it just hurt Edge, allowing Google to claim that Chrome's battery life was actually superior to Edge's. Microsoft asked Google if the company could remove the element, to no avail.

The latest version of Edge addresses the YouTube issue and reinstated Edge's performance. But when the company talks of having to do extra work to ensure EdgeHTML is compatible with the Web, this is the kind of thing that Microsoft has been forced to do.

As another example, YouTube uses a feature called HTML imports to load scripts. HTML imports haven't been widely adopted, either by developers or browsers alike, and ECMAScript modules are expected to serve the same role. But they're available in Chrome and used by YouTube. For Firefox and Edge, YouTube sends a JavaScript implementation of HTML imports which carries significant performance overheads. The result? YouTube pages that load in a second in Chrome take many seconds to load in other browsers.

These actions may not be deliberate on the part of Google—it's possible that the company simply doesn't care about other browsers, rather than actively trying to hinder them. But even an attitude of "Google first, who cares about the rest?" is not the kind of thing that we should want from a company trusted with so much control over the Web.

The strong get stronger; the weak get weaker

Microsoft's decision both gives Google an ever-larger slice of the pie and weakens Microsoft's position as an opposing voice. Even with Edge and Internet Explorer having a diminished share of the market, Microsoft has retained some sway; its IIS Web server commands a significant Web presence, and there's still value in having new protocols built in to Windows, as it increases their accessibility to software developers.

But now, Microsoft is committed to shipping and supporting whatever proprietary tech Google wants to develop, whether Microsoft likes it or not. Microsoft has been very explicit that its adoption of Chromium is to ensure maximal Chrome compatibility, and the company says that it is developing new engineering processes to ensure that it can rapidly integrate, test, and distribute any changes from upstream—it doesn't ever want to be in the position of substantially lagging behind Google's browser.

But this commitment ties Microsoft's hands: it means that the company can't ever meaningfully fork Chromium and diverge from its development path, because doing so will jeopardize that compatibility and increase the cost and complexity of incorporating Google's changes. This means that, even if Google takes Chromium in a direction that Microsoft disagrees with or opposes, Microsoft will have little option but to follow along regardless.

Web developers have historically only bothered with such trivia as standards compliance and as a way to test their pages in multiple browsers when the market landscape has forced them to. This is what made Firefox's early years so painful: most developers tested in Internet Explorer and nothing else, leaving Firefox compatibility to chance. As Firefox, and later Chrome, rose to challenge Internet Explorer's dominance, cross-browser testing became essential, and standards adherence became more valuable.

Two costs more than three or four

When developers test and design in only a single browser, adding a second into the mix can be relatively expensive and complicated; that second browser will typically reveal unwitting dependencies on the particular behavior of the first browser, requiring lots of changes to stick more closely to the standards. But adding a third tends to be cheaper, and a fourth cheaper still. Moving from one browser to two already means that the worst of the non-standard code and dependence on implementation quirks must be addressed.

With Chrome, Firefox, and Edge all as going concerns, a fair amount of discipline is imposed on Web developers. But with Edge removed and Chrome taking a large majority of the market, making the effort to support Firefox becomes more expensive.

Mozilla CEO Chris Beard fears that this consolidation could make things harder for Mozilla—an organization that exists to ensure that the Web remains a competitive landscape that offers meaningful options and isn't subject to any one company's control. Mozilla's position is already tricky, dependent as it is on Google's funding. But Mozilla is doing important, desirable work—Firefox has improved by leaps and bounds over the last year, and the development of the Rust language—which hopes to wed native code performance with safe memory handling—continues to show promise.

By relegating Firefox to being the sole secondary browser, Microsoft has just made it that much harder to justify making sites work in Firefox. The company has made designing for Chrome and ignoring everything else a bit more palatable, and Mozilla's continued existence is now that bit more marginal. Microsoft's move puts Google in charge of the direction of the Web's development. Google's track record shows it shouldn't be trusted with such a position.

Read Comments

Read the whole story
LeMadChef
10 hours ago
reply
I really wish they would have either put more effort into Edge or at least went with the Firefox engine.
Denver, CO
Share this story
Delete

Porsche Once Again Has to Teach People How to Pronounce Its Car Names

1 Share

If Porsche were a person, it would be the student with the unique name in a class full of Davids and Brittanys. “Porsch?” the substitute teacher questions, every time, after smoothly going down the list otherwise. “Porsch? P—ortch?”

Read more...

Read the whole story
LeMadChef
10 hours ago
reply
Denver, CO
Share this story
Delete

Kurdistani News Report Turns Into Unplanned Toyota Ad, Embarrassment for Range Rover

1 Share

In case you’ve made a bet that Jalopnik has no readers in Kurdistan, get ready to lose, pal, because today a reader from Kurdistan named San emailed me. I believe he actually exists. I think this because he sent me a link to this tweeted video clip from the news channel Rudaw, which was showing a report about heavy…

Read more...

Read the whole story
LeMadChef
10 hours ago
reply
Denver, CO
Share this story
Delete

Check Out This Wild Steam-Powered Jeep Wrangler 6x6 For Sale

1 Share

For sale: a massive, huge, six-wheeled, fire-and-smoke-and-steam-breathing Jeep. Steam powerplant not included.

Read more...

Read the whole story
LeMadChef
10 hours ago
reply
Denver, CO
Share this story
Delete

CenturyLink blocked its customers’ Internet access in order to show an ad

1 Share
A CenturyLink worker's van.

Enlarge (credit: Getty Images | RiverNorthPhotography)

CenturyLink briefly disabled the Internet connections of customers in Utah last week and allowed them back online only after they acknowledged an offer to purchase filtering software.

CenturyLink falsely claimed that it was required to do so by a Utah state law that says ISPs must notify customers "of the ability to block material harmful to minors." In fact, the new law requires only that ISPs notify customers of their filtering software options "in a conspicuous manner"; it does not say that the ISPs must disable Internet access until consumers acknowledge the notification. The law even says that ISPs may make the notification "with a consumer's bill," which shouldn't disable anyone's Internet access.

Coincidentally, CenturyLink's blocking of customer Internet access occurred days before the one-year anniversary of the Federal Communications Commission repeal of net neutrality rules, which prohibited blocking and throttling of Internet access.

"Just had CenturyLink block my Internet and then inject this page into my browser... to advertise their paid filtering software to me," software engineer and Utah resident Rich Snapp tweeted on December 9. "Clicking OK on the notice then restored my Internet... this is NOT okay!"

“Your Internet service has been fully restored”

Snapp's Internet access went out while he was watching streaming video via his Amazon Fire TV device. Since he wasn't sitting in front of his computer, it wasn't immediately obvious why his whole Internet connection went offline, he wrote in a blog post Thursday.

"After trying to debug the issue for a bit with no success I went to my computer, which was still connected to my ISP, but was also experiencing a strange lack of Internet," Snapp wrote. "Eventually I turned to a Google search on my phone only to be immediately greeted with an official looking notice."

That's when he saw this message from CenturyLink, informing him that he could buy filtering software:

(credit: Rich Snapp)

"At first glance I was worried that I had somehow been redirected to a malicious website and that this was some kind of phishing attempt... After all, I didn't navigate here," Snapp wrote. "I attempted to do another search but still ended up at this same notice. I considered the idea that maybe my ISP had detected some kind of threat coming from my network and that's why I was seeing this official looking page."

Snapp eventually clicked "OK" on the CenturyLink message, and his Internet came back. A new message from CenturyLink appeared, saying, "Your Internet service has been fully restored. If you are unable to access the Internet within 5 minutes, please power your modem off [for] at least 30 seconds."

State senator: No requirement to block access

Other Utah-based CenturyLink customers complained about the temporary blocking on Twitter and Reddit. A CenturyLink spokesperson responded to a query from Utah-based news site KSL.com, saying, "As a result of the new law, all CenturyLink high-speed Internet customers in Utah must acknowledge a pop-up notice, which provides information about the availability of filtering software, in order to access the Internet."

But as we previously noted, that isn't what the law says. The law states that ISPs may provide the notice either "by electronic communication," "with a consumer's bill," "or in another conspicuous manner," and does not require ISPs to disable Internet access until customers acknowledge the message.

Bill sponsor Todd Weiler, a Republican state senator, confirmed on Twitter that the law "did not require that—and no other ISP has done that to comply with the law. They were only required to notify customers of options via email or with an invoice."

ISPs have "had all year to comply," and most had already done so, Weiler continued. For example, "AT&T sent [the required notice] with a monthly invoice," Weiler wrote.

We contacted CenturyLink this morning and asked if the company simply misunderstood the law. In response, a CenturyLink spokesperson acknowledged that the law provides several options for compliance but defended the ISP's decision to temporarily block Internet access. CenturyLink's statement to Ars is as follows:

The intent of the Utah state legislation is to ensure that Utah internet consumers are aware of content filtering options to protect minors. The statute provides for various options, but the method of notification is to be conspicuous to ensure the message is read. We felt, given the gravity surrounding the protection of this most vulnerable population, the most conspicuous method of notification is a pop-up. CenturyLink did not engage in DNS hijacking and the pop-up message is being used to adhere to state law.

The message was sent only to residential customers, CenturyLink also said.

Read Comments

Read the whole story
LeMadChef
14 hours ago
reply
Denver, CO
Share this story
Delete

Volkswagen Restores Woman's Beloved Beetle She's Had For 52 Years

1 Share

If there’s been a silver lining to Volkswagen’s whole Dieselgate mess, its that since all that happened, the company has been working overtime to take our collective minds off that, and on to positive stories and experiences, many of which revolve around classic Volkswagens and their owners and the surrounding…

Read more...

Read the whole story
LeMadChef
15 hours ago
reply
Denver, CO
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories