Comment by refulgentis
6 months ago
This is interesting to me because you have all the right facts and are reasoning well with them. But, we end up at: "Yeah you're right it wasn't killed, just a rebrand, so they'll probably just delete the code for it"
I worked at Google, and I can guarantee ya people don't go back and change names in old code for the latest rebrand done for eyewash 4 layers above me. Not out of laziness, either, it just has 0 value and is risky.
Also, video conference perf was/is a pretty big deal (c.f. variety of sibling comments pointing out where it is used, from gSuite admin to client app). It is great on ye olde dev machine but it's very, very hard on $300 WintelChromebook thrown at line-level employees
FWIW, they shouldn't have hacked this in, I do not support it. And I bet they'll just delete it anyway because it shouldn't have been there in the first place. Some line-level employee slapped it in because, in the wise words of Ian Hickson: "Decisions went from being made for the benefit of users, to the benefit of Google, to the benefit of whoever was making the decision."
Sure, I was sloppy in my use of the term "dead". Hangouts the product/brand ceased to exist, Hangouts the codebase lives on. It was ever thus. I worked at Google too, y'know ;)
Cheers
Google videoconferencing runs astronomically better on a $300 Chromebook than on a $2500 Intel Mac.
Heh, 100% agree. I switched to Chromebook went WFH started because of it. It couldn't handle it on an external display but at least it wasn't painfully bad
This decision was to the benefit of users if it got videoconferencing off the ground before Zoom came along.
(I swear, sometimes I think the Internet has goldfish-memory. I remember when getting videoconferencing to work in a browser was a miracle, and why we wanted it in the first place).
Okay.
Pretending you said something conversational, like: "is that quote accurate in this case? The API may have literally enabled the creation of video conferencing. I, for one, remember we didn't used to have it."
I see.
So your contention is:
- if anyone thinks a statsd web API, hidden in Chrome, available only to Google websites is worth questioning
- they're insufficiently impressed by video conferencing existing
If I have that right:
I'm not sure those two things are actually related.
If you worked at Google, I'm very intrigued by the idea we can only collect metrics via client side web API for statsd, available only to Google domains.
If you work in software, I'm extremely intrigued by the idea video conferencing wouldn't exist without client site web API for statsd, available only to Google domains.
If you have more details on either, please, do share
Scoping the data collection to Google domains is a reasonable security measure because you don't want to leak it to everybody. And in general, Google does operate under the security model that if you trust them to drop a binary on your machine that provides a security sandbox (i.e. the browser), you trust them with your data because from that vantage point, they could be exfiltrating your bank account if they wanted to be.
But yes, I don't doubt that the data collection was pretty vital for getting Hangouts to the point it got to. And I do strongly suspect that it got us to browser-based video conferencing sooner than we would have been otherwise; the data collected got fed into the eventual standards that enable video conferencing in browsers today.
"Could not have" is too strong, but I think "could not have this soon" might be quite true. There was an explosion of successful technologies in a brief amount of time that were enabled by Google and other online service providers doing big data collection to solve some problems that had dogged academic research for decades.
4 replies →