Hacker News Reader

> Chrome is by far the best browser.

The reason this is true is simply because it's dominant, so every site builds for compatibility for Chrome. This is similar to how Windows is the best OS for gaming. Not because Windows has any technical advantage, but it's simply what developers build for. Firefox would "be the best browser" if it were dominant.

> The reason this is true is simply because it's dominant

And I remember a time where it wasn't dominant, where people went out of their way to install it, even when their OS would shove other browsers in their face...

It didn't become dominant by being a bad browser...

> where people went out of their way to install it

You mean, when Google went out of his way to make people install it. It is delusional to believe that the average PC user installed Chrome for its technical merit. They installed Chrome because there were advertisements everywhere, from subway to Youtube, and, above all IMHO, because ‶the Internet (understand google.com) said I have to install Chrome to go fast″. And that's not counting the heaps of installs that must have come from Chrome being bundled in adware installers and sneakily setting itself as the default browser.

It didn't hurt that yes, they advertised it, but I don't think it's fair to discount the effect that the "technorati" had on increasing its adoption.

That is, pretty much every tech person I know switched to Chrome because it was just so much better than what existed at the time, primarily its faster JS speed with v8, and I think most importantly for actual end-user experience, per-process tab isolation so that one bad tab wouldn't crash the whole browser. These were real, important innovations that had the tech elite quickly adopting Chrome.

So what happens once it's adopted by the tech elite? First, they push for making it the default install on new computers, which has a huge effect. Next, every time Mom or Dad or Grandma asks kid/grandkid for tech support, the first thing they do is say "Install Chrome first, that should help with a lot of your problems" - I certainly know I did it with my family members.

So while I don't want to discount advertising, I also like to say that it's easy to advertise great products - you just need to let people know the product exists, because eventually the product's benefits are self-apparent.

I don't buy this. Advertising is effective but advertising alone wouldn't have been enough to build this much momentum. This is all academic, but I don't consider most people idiots. I think most people installed Chrome because it had features they wanted or a technical person in their life recommended it. I was one of those technical people recommending Chrome.

It also got included as junkware with a lot of other freeware applications, back when that was still a thing.

> I think most people installed Chrome because it had features they wanted

Just go ask people from you family using Chrome why they do so, I bet at least half of them are not even aware they are using Chrome and not just ‶going on Google″.

This, prior to Firefox's "Quantum" rewrite it was simply the best product.

Chrome is definitely a good browser. It helped evolve the web. But, I don't think that Chrome today is much ahead of other browsers aside from compatibility.

When Chrome initially appeared, it was pretty much on par with Firefox, not significantly better. What made it succeed is great marketing and being forced and pushed down every possible Google channel there was, including being preinstalled on Android phones.

For significant periods of time in the mid-late 00-s to mid 10s, this just isn't true. Firefox's plugin, process and memory management was significantly worse than Chrome until relatively recently. As a result, for memory limited machines (all of them - remember, 4GB was considered huge), Chrome was the only real choice. I personally gave up on FF for 10 years from 2011 or so because I was sick of the plugin manager crashing and taking the machine with it.

Maybe in the middle part of that period. I'm saying that when it first appeared, it wasn't clearly superior. I'd argue it's also not clearly superior anymore.

To bring my own experience to it, I stuck with Firefox all throughout that period and never had significant bugs, slowdowns or crashes. Though I will admit that there was a period when Chrome felt noticeably smoother.

> It didn't become dominant by being a bad browser...

IE6: hold my beer

IE6 was by far the best browser at the time it became dominant

It just stagnated and became the worst browser over time

Eh, I think there are other benefits too: excellent extension ecosystem, simple and clean interface, default search engine is Google, generally fast and stable.

Chrome is the iPhone of the browser world - there are probably things in other browsers that work better, or that you could customize to fit your needs, but instead of spending the time to optimize those you can just choose chrome and you'd be pretty satisfied overall.

A lot of other companies cancel things, but until Stadia was killed Google did cancelations that would shock and anger consumers. Why?

1. They don’t tell people that it’s an experiment like Amazon.

2. The experiments feel short. This makes people anxious and hesitant about buying into a Google experiment

3. For paid products, they don’t offer refunds like Amazon. This makes people feel annoyed.

4. In some cases like with Nest Secure, Google had a fire sale BEFORE they made a cancellation announcement. This makes people angry.

The end result is that consumers now feel that it is a risk to buy products from Google. It’s great that Google is finally acknowledging this problem with the Stadia cancellation. Many people were pleasantly surprised that they were getting refunds on the hardware, though I’m sure anyone who bought a game outright instead of just subscribing isn’t too happy right now

Going on a tangent, Chromecast is one of the worse streamer boxes because for whatever strange reason, Google does not realize that multiple people will use the same streaming box and each of these people will want personalized recommendations. Does it have an “add another account” feature? Sure, but unlike every other streaming box it doesn’t just work. You have to make multiple attempts just to add another Google account.

> Many people were pleasantly surprised that they were getting refunds on the hardware, though I’m sure anyone who bought a game outright instead of just subscribing isn’t too happy right now

I believe they refunded software purchases and in-app purchases too. The only thing that didn't get refunded is Stadia Pro.

Gmail is not the best anymore. It barely seems to be worked on. Google Search is constantly the subject of complaints about terrible quality these days.

Chromecast is pretty great, but it's literally not possible to build a competitor.

Why is it not possible to build a competitor to Chromecast? Sure, you'd need to manufacture and sell a hardware dongle*, but that's not impossible. On the screencasting front, it's possible to screen-grab from Android and send that so you could mimic built-in functionality (not sure about iOS, but if Chromecast can do it then other apps can do it). Casting from media apps would require tie-ins with media companies, which again is tricky, but they're generally a bit pissed with Google so would likely welcome a competitor to the space. You'd have no chance of getting Youtube on board, but then you've got a decent case for anti-competitive behaviour, which EU and US systems are circling Google for anyway.

I'm not saying it would be easy, but it's certainly not impossible, with the right business model and business and political environment.

* It might be possible as a smart-TV app, though smart TVs tend to suck which is why Chromecast still sells units

I think they're referring to the protocol, not the device. But it is ambiguous to me too.

The biggest problem is their reputation precedes them. Nobody thought Stadia would last so nobody joined the ecosystem. To be fair it was a ridiculous ecosystem where you couldn't port in any of the games one already owned but how many people took one look at it and said "why do I want to buy games on a service that'll probably be dead in 18 months?"

I absolutely love Google Photos. Hope they keep it alive

I love the service but it has a fatal flaw (by design): no ability to synchronise my photos to my computer. Given the horror stories of Google accounts being locked for any and no reason at all, with no recourse, I've become extremely distrustful of cloud storage. I use it only with regular or synchronised backup. Google used to offer the ability to synchronise pictures to one's PC, but they removed that functionality. Presumably because more friction in this area keeps customers stickier. They're less likely to leave.

The only option is a full download of all pictures, and they do their damnedest to ensure it's uncomfortable. Albums aren't properly labelled and linked. Labels are a mess. Picture naming is broken. Exif data randomly stripped or altered. Duplicates galore. This process ensures that, even if one is diligent and ensures they regularly download the entire database, they'll end up with a completely unmanageable picture library with dozens of duplicates. And most people aren't that studious.

Have you managed to find an alternative? Your concerns resonate with me but I still don't know the best way to automatically backup all the photos I take on my phone, search them later, etc

I ended up paying for iCloud and buying a Mac. There is an option to automatically sync full copies to Mac. They charge a premium but it works flawlessly.

Caveat 1: it's technically a sync, not a backup. The risk remains that Apple deletes all my pictures remotely, and this deletion propagates to delete my local copies. There is still a recycle bin, but perhaps Apple has some way of deleting even that remotely. I don't think so, but it's a risk. To mitigate this, I periodically download all pictures to "cold" storage. It's fragmented and poorly categorised but at least the pictures are there in the case of a catastrophe.

Caveat 2: this only works in the Apple ecosystem.

For Unraid/Windows (Docker), I found this: https://www.reddit.com/r/selfhosted/comments/tsxi5k/icloudpd...

If by “technology”, you mean just “web services and browsers thereof”—then yes, sure.