News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by josteink on Monday January 11, 2016 @02:05AM (#10879291)
> So, a bug in YouTube's compatibility-autodetection caused it to fall back to a slower, bitrate-limited fallback method that it didn't need to, for some versions of Firefox. They took two weeks to deploy the fix. Considering those two weeks included Christmas and the bug didn't affect security or render the site unavailable, this seems like a pretty good response time.

Do you think it would take 2 weeks or less than a hour if the browser affected was Google Chrome?

Google has systematically made Firefox an inferior option when using Youtube, pushing people to install Chrome instead because "Firefox doesn't work". At some point you almost start thinking they're doing it intentionally and maliciously to push their own (closed, DRMed) browser.

Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by skarap on Monday January 11, 2016 @02:16AM (#10879327)
It's not just them. Have you tried viewing HN comments in Firefox for Android?

A few years ago Chrome gained majority among web developers and everyone just stopped testing with Firefox or any other browser. In fact not just testing - they started developing for Chrome only. And now we've got us into another IE6 situation and I think it will be even harder to overcome this time.

Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by rubberstamp on Monday January 11, 2016 @03:20AM (#10879554)
HN on firefox is bad. Comments doesn't have any hierarchy. HN has to fix that.

I use firefox on android as it is the only one that has extensions. I use uBlock and mht extensions.

On linux desktop too firefox is used mostly as it uses less memory than chrome when you have too many tabs open

Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by pmontra on Monday January 11, 2016 @04:57AM (#10879874)
HN on Android looks exactly the same in FF, Chrome and the stock browser. I checked right now. Even the zoom behaviour is the same. The only browser that makes the site behave better is Opera with text reflow on zoom enabled. I can't understate how useful that feature is in general and I can't understand why every browser doesn't offer it. It's the reason why I'm using Opera on Android despite using Firefox on the desktop. Another reason I'm not using FF on Android is that it's noticeably slower at rendering the page at the end of a scroll action. It seems that blink is better at that.

I'm adblocking with AdAway on the device I rooted and with Adblock Plus (a local proxy) on the one I didn't root.

You get them on F-Droid.

https://f-droid.org/repository/browse/?fdid=org.adaway https://f-droid.org/repository/browse/?fdid=org.adblockplus....

Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by dmm on Monday January 11, 2016 @07:53AM (#10880489)
> HN on Android looks exactly the same in FF, Chrome and the stock browser.

I just checked too and Firefox looks different in the comments and it has been broken since the beginning of the mobile changes.

The comments on FF for Android do not have any additional indentation to suggest they are children. On firefox every comment takes the entire width of the screen, even if it's a heavily nested reply. On chrome comments have additional space on the left side indicating if they are children and who they are replying to.

The frontpage looks fine on Firefox. The comments do not look fine. When you view a stories comments on Firefox for android it's impossible to tell what comments are children.

Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by pmontra on Monday January 11, 2016 @08:49AM (#10880714)
Solution found:

> The comments on FF for Android do not have any additional indentation to suggest they are children.

I reinstalled FF on my phone and you're right. On my tablet FF behaves like Chrome. Some media queries gone awries or some FF quirk on smaller screens? FF-desktop behaves like the one on the phone when the window is resized to be narrow so it seems to be consistent with itself.

HN is using a media query to set the indentation using an empty image and setting its width. Check the /news.css file. Each comment is a tr, with 3 td elements. The image is the first one, then the votes arrows and the text. FF arranges those td in vertical, blink keeps them on the same row.

Digging into the CSS I realized that it's because of the display: block at line 88. If I remove it FF indents the comments. Opera keeps looking good.

Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by bzbarsky on Monday January 11, 2016 @09:36AM (#10880935)
Oh, that's awesome.

The CSS is clearly setting these to display:block, so they should in fact stack. But the page is also in quirks mode (no doctype), and in quirks mode Chrome (and WebKit) seems to compute the display of <td> to "table-cell" no matter what the styles say.

So yeah, someone just wrote CSS that depends on a bug in Chrome/WebKit and either didn't bother to test in other browsers or doesn't care whether it works there.

Edit: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=369979 is the 1.5-year-old bug report on Chrome to remove this unnecessary quirk. Let's see what HN does if/when the Chrome folks fix that one...

Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by pmontra on Monday January 11, 2016 @09:58AM (#10881057)
Interesting explanation. Thanks.

Btw this could prove my point that people ditch browsers because of bugs of sites, if those sites look good in other browsers.

Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by bzbarsky on Monday January 11, 2016 @10:05AM (#10881103)
Thank _you_ for actually digging into the CSS and finding the problem!
Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by rubberstamp on Monday January 11, 2016 @10:15AM (#10881177)
This is awesome, as expected from tech crowd. As soon as I got time to look into this, someone else has figured it all out.

Many eyes/brains on the bug means quickly figuring out issues. If it was open source the patch for this would probably be in testing now.

Active and very Awesome community!!

Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by tripzilch on Tuesday January 12, 2016 @03:53AM (#10886273)
quirksmode, table-cells... I don't think the problem here is the browser.
Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by dang on Tuesday January 12, 2016 @03:36AM (#10886230)
Bravo pmontra! We've rolled that out.

I'm ashamed to say that this fix was on our list for a month and we hadn't gotten to it despite how easy it turned out to be (assuming, at least, that nothing breaks in other browsers). Fortunately HN has excellent users.

Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by pmontra on Tuesday January 12, 2016 @05:31AM (#10886555)
I checked the site with FF on my phone and it really works. Maybe I can start using FF there. Thanks for deploying the patch so quickly.
Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by pelario on Tuesday January 12, 2016 @04:18AM (#10886330)
Opera Mini in android lost the indentation of comments around two months ago :(
Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by dang on Tuesday January 12, 2016 @06:16PM (#10891168)
Is it still broken?
Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by pelario on Thursday January 14, 2016 @09:40AM (#10901608)
It works now, thanks a lot !
Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by skarap on Monday January 11, 2016 @01:23PM (#10882089)
A CSS fixing the layout on Firefox based on your solution: https://gist.github.com/skarap/15bf77d63fe596ee55ce . Use Stylish (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/stylish/) to load it.
Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by skarap on Monday January 11, 2016 @12:07PM (#10881632)
> Solution found:

Thank you for caring enough to look into this!

Would be absolutely awesome if we could find somebody from HN to fix it.

Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by tombrossman on Monday January 11, 2016 @06:35AM (#10880210)
Here is what the comments look like on FF for Android: https://i.imgur.com/5e7hIMK.png

Does it look the same on Chrome, with no indentation for comments and replies? I've removed Chrome so I'm unable to test but I thought this was just a bug.

Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by dmm on Monday January 11, 2016 @07:55AM (#10880495)
No it looks completely different in Firefox for mobile. There is no way on FF to distinguish which comments are children.
Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by pmontra on Monday January 11, 2016 @07:55AM (#10880499)
I don't have Chrome on the phone but I have answered here about FF https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10880486 Check the parent posts.
Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by rubberstamp on Monday January 11, 2016 @05:37AM (#10880014)
opera has always been innovative browser with good features as long back as i can remember(opera on Nokia s60v3 back then). features like great speed dial on mobile n desktop, save for offline, opera turbo mode, syncing bookmarks between desktop n mobile, website overview mode, text reflow.. I have to use addons with other browsers to have these features on chrome or firefox. Opera has a great team. Has poor market share though. They also had good security. Opera wasn't vulnerable to some big ssl bug discovered a couple of years ago. Most other browsers were. They recently switched their rendering engine to webkit though
Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by digi_owl on Monday January 11, 2016 @06:09AM (#10880127)
And ever since that switch it felt like they had fired all their engineers and got lost chasing some kind of design shiny.

I guess i should have seen it coming when they were gushing about their "coast" concept.

Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by tripzilch on Tuesday January 12, 2016 @04:00AM (#10886290)
they actually did fire about 100 people from the Presto team (previous engine) as they switched to webkit.
Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by digi_owl on Thursday January 14, 2016 @09:45AM (#10901644)
well damn, i missed that one...
Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by tripzilch on Friday January 15, 2016 @11:18AM (#10910196)
Yeah. I was a big Opera user (/fan) before that ..
Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by damien on Monday January 11, 2016 @11:24AM (#10881341)
Yea, the slow scrolling on Android is annoying. I believe it's caused by not using the native functionality, which I hope gets fixed soon: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=776030
Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by pcwalton on Monday January 11, 2016 @03:00PM (#10882944)
That bug is not about using the native scrolling infrastructure. I don't see a reason why the native Android functionality would be better than what Gecko already does.

(I wrote the initial version of Firefox for Android's scrolling code.)

Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by digi_owl on Monday January 11, 2016 @06:07AM (#10880121)
Opera is slipping though. Ever since they abandoned their presto lineage and move to a Chrome derivative, they have been busy crapifying their browsers by focusing on shiny over functionality.

Just wish Vivaldi had gone mobile first...

Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by lucb1e on Monday January 11, 2016 @03:38AM (#10879608)
And on top of that, it's also a principle matter for me. Unless I run into impossibilities, I prefer free and open source software because it offers more control, privacy and hackability, and it will act in my best interest instead of that of the company behind it.
Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by derf_ on Monday January 11, 2016 @08:23AM (#10880597)
> HN on firefox is bad. Comments doesn't have any hierarchy.

On desktop, at least, you can fix this by making your browser window wider (just resize the window: you'll find a threshold past which the hierarchy appears or disappears).

That doesn't help much for mobile, where you can't really resize windows.

Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by berdario on Monday January 11, 2016 @02:31AM (#10879377)
This is the crux of the issue.

Gmail itself is unusable on Android + Firefox. When using an alternative browser you'll also stumble in problems with plenty of Android apps: Slack, Citymapper, etc... (when opening a web page intent, they expect that the only app that'll receive that will be Chrome)

The situation isn't as bad for desktop browsers, but it's depressing how things can still be broken.

Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by skarap on Monday January 11, 2016 @03:01AM (#10879491)
> The situation isn't as bad for desktop browsers

Don't worry, it will get worse. Firefox is now forced to accept `-webkit-` in css (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/01/04/firefox_webkit_css_s...) not to be "broken". This will obviously lead to even less Firefox testing.

Hell, even I (my team) am contributing to this! We're working on Angular-based web SPA now. It hasn't got much functionality yet, but already has quite a few bugs when viewed in Firefox. And the usual answer from frontend guys is "It's a firefox bug!".

Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by emn13 on Monday January 11, 2016 @04:25AM (#10879768)
I remember fixing one of frontend bugs in an SPA and contrary to the claims it turned out to be a webkit bug that the code relied on (the app had been developed on a mac, so it's fairly easy to only test on webkit/blink). Lovely.

Aside/Rant: I also get the impression that frontend devs have never read the CSS2.1 spec or bothered to understand it (CSS3 is longer, and consists largely of special-purpose extra modules, so a complete reading is less valuable and more difficult). There's somehow this feeling that since CSS "isn't a real programming language" you should be able to use it intuitively. And when things don't work out and you fiddle until it works without giving thought to why, that's OK. That's such a huge waste of time. The box model may not be 100% intuitive, but boy, if that's your standard, what you doing in IT?

Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by masklinn on Monday January 11, 2016 @06:01AM (#10880101)
> the app had been developed on a mac, so it's fairly easy to only test on webkit/blink

It's no harder to only test on Chrome in Linux and IE in Windows, I fail to see how that's an excuse. The only excuses are IE testing when developing on OSX and Safari testing when developing on Windows, it's trivial to install both Firefox and Chrome on any OS.

Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by emn13 on Sunday January 17, 2016 @12:29PM (#10920127)
Actually, it's easier to test for IE versions on linux/mac due to http://xdissent.github.io/ievms/ - You can install the VMs on windows too (of course), but I've never stumbled upon quite as simple a solution. On windows I tend to just rely on compat mode, which is surprisingly good, but far from perfect.
Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by digi_owl on Monday January 11, 2016 @04:11AM (#10879717)
I suspect it will go beyond CSS.

There are a certain kind of app on Android that makes the device FS available via a web browser.

Thing is that these apps invariably makes use of a Chrome-ism when dealing with drag and drop.

In Firefox you can only drag a single file at a time. drag over multiple, or a folder, and there won't be much of a result.

In Chrome however it will transfer over just fine.

This has been sitting in the Mozilla bugtracker for some time, because the Chrome behavior goes beyond the HTML spec for file uploads.

Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by yyhhsj0521 on Monday January 11, 2016 @07:00AM (#10880285)
Yeah sometimes I wonder if providing extra behaviors is good or bad.

Certainly it could save developers a lot of works and save users a lot of time, but it may become next ActiveXObject("Microsoft.XMLHTTP");

Maybe Chrome should put a warning into the console, saying that this function is experimental.

Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by hussong on Tuesday January 12, 2016 @09:14AM (#10887477)
FWIW, Paypal rendered as completely blank pages (home and login / payment pages) in FF/Ubuntu until a couple days ago. Not sure when this started, but I've seen it before on some of their payment pages.
Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by darklajid on Monday January 11, 2016 @04:20AM (#10879752)
Upvoting you is not enough - let's focus on the local problem.

Dang - have you seen HN in Firefox on Android recently? Is there something we can do to improve this? Given that HN receives a moderate amount of (visible) changes recently, is there a way to make the site work in that situation/setup?

Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by pmontra on Monday January 11, 2016 @05:09AM (#10879923)
I already commented about this issue at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10879874

To elaborate it further, the problem common to every browser I tried (the only one missing is Safari) is that comments are nested and if I zoom the page to be actually able to read the text, I have to pain points now:

1) I have to keep scrolling right and left to keep them in view as I scroll vertically to follow the threads.

2) Even if 1 were not bad enough, the comments are too wide now to fit into the screen (remember that I zoomed in) and I have to horizontally scroll at each line. The only browser not to suffer from that is Opera which reflows text after a zoom (if you enable that option). I'm left with problem 1 but it's the least painful.

I suspect that a div layout would fare better, still there are tons of blogs with div layouts that end up with 10px wide comments at deep nesting levels. Maybe some media queries to remove nesting for devices not wide enough and adapt the page width after a zoom? I don't even know if the latter is possible.

Edit: I checked on the desktop and it seems that you already reduce nesting when the screen width is reduced, to the point of removing it at all. I wonder why my tablet and my browser are not affected and keep displaying the indentation to the left. Any browser, any user agent (desktop or mobile). They're 1600x2560px and 480x800px.

Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by skarap on Monday January 11, 2016 @07:35AM (#10880415)
Well I've sent a bug report to [email protected] back in November.

They said "It's a bad bug and we're going to fix it". So I'm waiting.

Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by dwightgunning on Monday January 11, 2016 @06:52AM (#10880262)
It would be neat if the HN frontend was open-source and the community could submit PRs for improvements.
Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by rubberstamp on Monday January 11, 2016 @05:05AM (#10879904)
whatever you do, please keep everything else as it is now. HN loads very fast as it doesn't load every library on the planet. Do fix the rendering problem on firefox if possible, and keep it lightweight as it is now
Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by pbhjpbhj on Monday January 11, 2016 @09:28AM (#10880901)
If you took out all the table markup you'd probably save about half the page code. Using divs and css doesn't require any onpage libraries and would allow [HN] users to easily fix things like this with a user.css file with a left border on nested comments (for example) if the site didn't want to have a sane style for some reason [established parsing tools maybe].
Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by msl09 on Monday January 11, 2016 @05:04AM (#10879898)
What's wrong?
Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by darklajid on Monday January 11, 2016 @05:17AM (#10879958)
http://m.imgur.com/On83n3W

The indentation for one. Notice that the second comment is an answer to the first, but is on the same level of indentation. Following discussions like that is highly annoying.

Weird: While grabbing the phone to answer your question I noticed that "threads", i.e. the view of my comments, works fine. Just the comments below submission links are broken.

Compare to Chrome: http://m.imgur.com/Wpusprq

Note that I do use uBlock in Firefox. Now that I think about it, that might be relevant as well. But then again, why would that break the submission view and not the "threads" link?

Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by pmontra on Monday January 11, 2016 @07:53AM (#10880486)
I get that Chrome like rendering in every browser on my tablet (1) and with Opera and the stock browser on the phone. I reinstalled Firefox on the browser and it looks like your one. I understand that it makes difficult to follow threads but at least we can see deeply nested comments: they don't collapse to a single column of letters.

(1) Lines are not terminated at the screen boundary on the tablet if I zoom in. They keep going off screen to the right. Same on the stock browser on the phone and with Opera if I turn off text reflow.

Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by quanticle on Monday January 11, 2016 @03:03AM (#10879500)
>And now we've got us into another IE6 situation and I think it will be even harder to overcome this time.

I hate to defend Chrome, but I don't think that comparing Chrome to IE6 is warranted (yet). The problem with IE was that a large number of users were stuck with IE6 and never updated (either by their own choice or their IT departments'). So web developers had to write code for modern web browsers, and then implement a compatibility layer (I guess we call it polyfill, these days) for IE6. Chrome, however, has an update mechanism that the vast majority of users and IT departments do not override. Chrome is not in an IE6 situation because historically the number of users running old versions of Chrome is small and drops off rapidly as new versions come out.

I pulled these graphs from a few years ago, comparing Chrome adoption to IE adoption:

http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/chrome...

http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/intern...

Notice that Chrome uptake is very rapid, with the vast majority of users being on the current version of Chrome after approximately two to three months. Compare that with IE, where the majority of users still aren't using the most modern version of Internet Explorer after two to three years.

So no, I don't think Chrome is in the same position as IE. Google pushes updates to Chrome on a frequent basis, and, more importantly, those updates are actually applied by users. That said, it's still possible that Google could tomorrow do what Microsoft did when IE "won the browser war", which is disband the team and cease Chrome development. Do I think this is a likely scenario? Of course not. Is it possible? Sure.

Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by josteink on Monday January 11, 2016 @03:11AM (#10879524)
The problem with IE6 was not that users didn't update. It was that IE created a monoculture among developers, using IE only features. Which resulted in code which got out on the web, and stayed there.

And then every browser had to either 1. be "broken" because the web-pages didn't work, or 2. forego W3C, standard-process and all that and emulate IE's bugs in order to be "real" browsers people could use.

And long after IE6 is gone, all that is still hanging around, causing issues to this day.

Right now we're getting a Chrome monoculture. People are using pre-standard Chrome and Webkit only features in production websites. In the future those websites will stick around, no matter if Chrome users update their browsers or not.

Chrome is the new IE. With Google giving a shit about real standardization, launching non-standard features in Chrome and production websites at the same time, they are the new Microsoft.

Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by zanny on Monday January 11, 2016 @08:51AM (#10880729)
> launching non-standard features in Chrome and production websites at the same time, they are the new Microsoft.

Are there any features they are pushing in Chrome they are simultaneously not pushing on w3c to adopt? The problem with IE6 is that it not only did its own thing, it did the opposite thing the standard said to do. If Chrome is just standard + new stuff, and that new stuff eventually becomes standard, it isn't a problem. But its standard + new stuff + anti-standard bullshit, the latter is the issue and Google should be criticized for it.

Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by douche on Monday January 11, 2016 @08:33AM (#10880640)
The only way new features seem to get into the standards is if some browser starts offering it, and it gains so much traction that the standards bodies can't ignore it.

Web standards seem, from where I'm standing, to be very post-hoc.

Indeed, I think that's the way it ought to be. How many times has it worked out well when you've fully specified something, before you attempt to actually build it? For me that number is very close to 0.

Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by rapind on Monday January 11, 2016 @09:30AM (#10880915)
I think this is the intent. A proposal is brought to TC39. It gets discussed. Someone champion's it (implements it in the wild). Adoption and usefulness are determined. New standards are accepted.

I think this is a much better practice than a bunch of dudes just deciding what browsers will support and how they support it without actually trying it on first.

It's pretty much all in the open. No need for conspiracy theories. The environment is significantly different than it was during the early IE days.

https://github.com/tc39/ecma262

Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by skarap on Monday January 11, 2016 @03:34AM (#10879596)
I should have been more specific in what I mean by "IE6 situation". I was talking mostly about the years 2005-2008 when IE had already won the browser wars and despite a new and better browser (Firefox in this case) already existed, users couldn't switch to it (because ActiveX, because VML, ...) and developers couldn't [care to] stop using IE-only stuff, because everyone was using IE anyway. The current Chrome situation is more or less the same now.

The non-updating users problem is a bit different. I guess it had quite a contribution to the problem discussed above (e.g. if Microsoft had a good mechanism to switch most of IE6 users to 7, they might have made 7 a better - less "compatible" - browser).

And Chrome's great upgrade mechanism is one of the reasons I think the Chrome situation will be even harder to overcome. IE6 became so old and ridiculously bad that some sites stopped providing first-class user experience to it's users, so that users had to do something - upgrade. The same think won't probably happen to Chrome, because:

1. Google probably remembers Microsoft's history and will try to avoid the same mistakes.

2. They have an automated mechanism to keep Chrome updated.

And as long as they keep gmail and facebook working great in Chrome (and - ideally - worse in every other browser), they are safe.

I guess this is even good for the users - uniformly good user experience on all devices. Though - of course - if you don't mind exposing every detail of your online life to Google. http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Nobody_cares

Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by digi_owl on Monday January 11, 2016 @06:16AM (#10880160)
What you are looking at there is that MS decided to shoot themselves in the foot over and over by tying things like the latest IE or DirectX to a specific version of Windows.

End result is that the last version that shipped on XP became the lowest common denominator.

Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by tvmalsv on Monday January 11, 2016 @03:26AM (#10879575)
Maybe I read it the wrong way, but by "another IE6 situation", I took the comment to mean that Firefox is the new IE6, likening Chrome's position to Firefox's at the time.

You have a lot of new stuff being designed & tested using Chrome, with some site breakage if using Firefox. Similar to several years ago when releasing sites that "work best with Firefox" (complete with badge images stating such), leaving IE6 users with a lesser experience.

Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by spoiler on Monday January 11, 2016 @02:57AM (#10879476)
Most of the time when I saw people develop "for Chrome" (like experiments), it would use standard stuff, but it only so happens that other browsers don't implement them [properly], yet. Or maybe I'm just awfully pedantic, but whenever I make stuff I tend to make it as close to the standard as possible, and fall back to vendor-specific stuff only when necessary (and usually try to cover all the major browsers).

Also, aren't most the Chrome-specific things disabled unless the app runs as an extension to discourage this type of chrome-only behaviour? I can't test/verify now, since I'm on my phone. This excludes CSS prefixes, since those are rarely needed these days anyway.

Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by rpgmaker on Monday January 11, 2016 @09:30AM (#10880914)
This is the first comment that I have read that has acknowledged this situation. I've been noticing this for quite a while. At first I was reluctant to believe it because designers should know better than anyone how bad that can turn out in the long run. Firefox is treated as IE now by this crowd. Google has been particularly shameful promoting their browser. It's gotten to the point where if your Firefox version is two releases behind they start showing their little "install chrome" ad. Ridiculous.
Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by Dr_tldr on Monday January 11, 2016 @03:09AM (#10879517)
In retrospect, it was probably not a good idea to allow Google to buy Youtube. Because at this point, I don't think they're intentionally going after Firefox, but the tight coupling between Youtube and Google makes it impossible for them to actually be neutral in terms of things like bug fixes.

It's way too granular to be handled through the legal system or any kind of government regulation, so it's an unfortunate situation that's going to keep happening.

Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by josteink on Monday January 11, 2016 @03:16AM (#10879538)
The problem is not Google owning Youtube. The problem is Google owning a majority of internet real-estate and a web-browser.

Now they can bypass any W3C standards-comittee and launch whatever they want in production websites and their own browser at the same time, much like Microsoft did. They already have their own Googley version of ActiveX out there! It will be fun to see what's next! /s

Google Chrome is the worst thing which has happened to the modern web.

Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by Dr_tldr on Monday January 11, 2016 @03:57AM (#10879666)
Yeah, it's the Microsoft anti-trust situation all over again, except that all of Silicon Valley has gotten about 10x more sophisticated in terms of legal strategy and political clout. And just because I like Google (a lot!) and I didn't like Microsoft doesn't change that the technical landscape is becoming analogous.
Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by thawkins on Monday January 11, 2016 @05:10AM (#10879925)
Most organisations implement a change freeze over the holidays to prevent problematic code being deployed whilst they are low on resources I guess this did not trigger google's criteria for a '911' fix.
Re:YouTube change served lower-quality video to Firefox 43 f... by leoc on Monday January 11, 2016 @10:03AM (#10881089)
> Do you think it would take 2 weeks or less than a hour if the browser affected was Google Chrome?

I'd be inclined to agree, but then Google did start spam-binning its own security notifications a while ago and didn't seem to notice until Linus Torvalds started blogging about the rise in spam false positives. "Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence" - that is the Google motto, after all. ;)