"oops" https://www.zdnet.com/article/former-mozilla-exec-google-has...

Google stopped testing stuff in Firefox, that is all they did afaik. We all should know how many bugs and "oppsies" you get when you don't test before releasing new features. Test code snippets being pushed to prod etc.

Engineers tend to create paper trails on what they work on, code reviews and bug logs etc are everywhere, so I doubt there is any of those where they say "Make things shit for Firefox to hurt our competitors", that would net them an easy loss in court. But not testing in browsers with small userbases will hold in court.

Firefox has a small userbase partly because of the early "oopses" described in the article I linked. Those happened a while ago, when Firefox had more users than Chrome.

Chrome was bigger than Firefox by 2012, the accusations that Google intentionally made things worse for Firefox came many years after that.

But they referred to behaviour that was present pretty much from the start. It's just that Mozilla folks were extremely tolerant and assumed good faith for a very long time.

Google have been disgustingly anticompetitive for a very, very long time at this point.

Yeah, one of the biggest examples being the HTML 5 video push and Chrome’s claims around H.264: Google promised they were going all in on WebM and would remove support soon, but never did. That meant that Firefox users got more errors outright but also that for years even sites like YouTube would leave Firefox using 100% CPU with your laptop fans on high doing software WebM while Chrome users got hardware accelerated H.264. That became moot after Mozilla and Cisco struck that deal and video hardware acceleration for other formats shipped but there was a multi-year period where Firefox suffered badly in comparison to other browsers.

Another person is claiming that Google writes custom code for Firefox (or other browsers) to enable tracking, because of the feature difference between Firefox and Chrome [1]. Only one of you can be correct.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38347364

The company is big enough for both of them to be correct.

I have firsthand knowledge that Cloud, for instance, did not test regularly directly on Firefox. Team couldn't justify the cost of setting up and maintaining a FF test suite to satisfy 1 in 50 users, so they didn't (and nobody up-chain pushed back on that). Testing was done regularly on Chrome, Safari, and Edge, as per the usercounts and "top three browser" guidance (at the time, we didn't even test regularly on mobile, since there was a separate mobile client).

But the analytics team? I'm sure they test directly on Firefox. They're just testing an entirely different piece of the elephant and their end-to-ends won't include how, for example, changes they make interoperate with Firefox in the context of Cloud. Or YouTube. Or etc. Not unless they have a specific reason to be concerned enough to.

Google's like any other megacorp in the sense that costs of cross-team coordination are combinatoric.

Nah, they're totally incentivized to make sure tracking works while still having plenty of oopsies that could cause people to switch.

This should be a top level comment on news like this. Everyone needs to be reminded that this is neither a new behavior nor something unintentional.

Very good point. It's important to recognise that developers in many companies are often not fully aware of the intended use of features they're asked to create.

Another example that springs to mind is Uber, who used a tool called "Greyball" to avoid contact between drivers and authorities: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-uber-greyball-idUKKBN16B0...

My initial reaction was astonishment that the engineers would happily implement this. And maybe that is what happened. But the alternative possibility is that product and senior management assigned different parts of the feature to different teams e.g. one team develops a pattern recognition system to detect users' professions, another team develops a spoofing system for use in demos, etc...

Why would you be surprised that they'd implement this? It's their job to implement things.

They were using it to evade law enforcement while flouting regulations. It's highly unethical and almost certainly illegal.

Oh I thought you were referring back to the YouTube issue

Tbh even that is ethically very questionable, if the engineers knew that the outcome would be a delay specific to Firefox.

> * Marketing/Sales asks engineers to add a feature flag to sleep N milliseconds for their research: "how slowing down impacts your revenue"

“Research”

They have done such research before, Google published this at a time when developers were all "100 ms more or less web load time doesn't matter". Since then webpages has gotten much more focused on performance.

https://blog.research.google/2009/06/speed-matters.html

The dog slow load times of ad infested AMP pages would suggest otherwise.

The prevailing developer discussions going from "Load speed doesn't matter, stop complaining about useless stuff" to "load times matters, but here we choose to make it slow for other reasons" is a massive improvement though. Today speed is valued, it wasn't back then.

Untrue. I optimized pages pre-2000, and it had always mattered.

It's always, always mattered. If anything, people care less today, with the entire ridiculous 100 loads per page.

Of course it always mattered. But at the time lots of people argued it didn't matter, which is why the headline is "Speed matters". You thinking it did matter at the time doesn't mean the general community thought so.

But the general community did care about speed. Everyone worked towards small load times, optimized (for example) image size for optimal load time, everyone cared.

Whomever didn't care was weird.

AMP pages load way, way faster IME

Not as fast as with 90% of JS blocked. That's how the web was supposed to work, not downloading 50 MiB on every hyperlink.

Researching how best to fuck with your competitors.

Next: researching regulatory capture?

This doesn’t add up.

In order for someone to slow down the by browser they need someone to have coded the following:

- UA Detection

- Branching for when the flag is on or off

- a timeout that only runs when these two things are true

That takes an engineer to do the work. Marketing and product managers are not writing this code certainly.

If they’re abusing a differ t flag, then the real question I have is what the flags purpose is and why is it screening Firefox.

Either way there is an intention of UA checking and throttling based on the UA and that takes an engineer to do it

Not so hard to believe tho. I work on a product that has parametrized feature flags. This means that, from a web interface, someone can say things like "activate feature X, on machines running operating system Y, at version Z, and are running product version W with license type Q". This is not a hard thing to build, and once you have it you can mix and match filters without being a software engineer or knowing how it works behind the scenes.