Bose QC 35 Firmware 4.5.2 Noise Cancellation Investigation Report - <AUTHOR> https://community.bose.com/t5/Around-On-Ear-Headphones/Bose-QC-35-Firmware-4-5-2-Noise-Cancellation-Investigation/td-p/285738#anoverview <comment><USER2> They are showing so much respect and care for their customers that is almost unbelievable.

Kudos to their will to analyze and also document about a single problem so thoroughly.

I never bought a Bose product before, but reading this honestly makes me think about it...

If any company would cost a premium for being as careful as they are, I would definitely pay for it.

<comment><USER3> I disagree. The great customer support is just PR and an image they managed to create. When it comes down to costing them money to do the right thing, they don't.

The headphones won't turn off, but Bose refuses to make it right for the users:

[https://community.bose.com/t5/Around-On-Ear- Headphones/QC-35...](https://community.bose.com/t5/Around-On-Ear- Headphones/QC-35-I-is-Turning-On-By-Itself/m-p/277366#M55150)

Note, the "solution" is buy new headphones if yours are our out of warranty.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bugTnRbnhQ&feature=youtu.be](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bugTnRbnhQ&feature=youtu.be)

Edit: Wow, downvoted to -1 :/

<comment><USER4> What has your experience been with the multipoint feature of Bose QC35 IIs? I'll make do with above average noise cancellation; doesn't have to be top shelf in that aspect. I mainly want multipoint[1] and Bose I've been told does it absolutely seamlessly more so than the Jabras, Sennheisers etc.

[1]

What is Bluetooth multipoint, and why isn't it more popular?

[https://www.soundguys.com/bluetooth-multipoint- explained-286...](https://www.soundguys.com/bluetooth-multipoint- explained-28601/)

<comment><USER5> It's a start, but personally, between my work phone + laptop, and personal phone + laptop, along with misc other devices, means that I find myself in the app switching devices more often than is ideal. It's a _bit_ cumbersome. Better than competing products, way better than trying to manage without, could still use additional improvement to support additional devices.

<comment><USER6> On the QC35 II you can cycle through the devices by using the power button.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> As a researcher in acoustics (another field though) this post illustrates beautifully the difficulties of the field: how each of us feels different about sound (psychoacoustics), how even minute mechanical details have a noticeable impact on acoustic performance...

FWIW I can confirm that this post shows great expertise in acoustic engineering, from the focus on the customer interviews/fieldwork (it is still very difficult to predict through synthetic tests in the lab how actual human will rate sounds) to the paired acoustic tests (we suck at comparing more than two sounds, we need pairing like in the ophthalmologist), the use of a critical listener, etc.

<comment><USER8> I agree it is very thorough, what is really strange from my experience with the QC35 is that they haven't found any problem. The noise cancellation in my earphones was working perfectly, performed the upgrade, and now I can hear the person next to me typing when I couldn't before. 100% there is a problem with the firmware update no idea how they couldn't find it with that amount of testing.

<comment><USER8> Doing a bit more digging, it looks like the report from Bose is testing the wrong issue. They tested 4.1.3 to 4.5.2 where as the issue is from 2.x.x and 3.x.x update to 4.5.2.

[https://community.bose.com/t5/Around-On-Ear- Headphones/Bose-...](https://community.bose.com/t5/Around-On-Ear- Headphones/Bose-QC-35-Firmware-4-5-2-Noise-Cancellation- Investigation/td-p/285741/page/2)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Why do the newer versions of these have to have freaking Alexa bundled with them. It's like a giant skid mark on an otherwise premium product. Bose does have the best noise cancelling functionality, but I'm simply never going to buy anything with Alexa, Cortana, or whatever Google's version of a voice assistant is paired to it. I deal with Siri crapware because Apple's incentives are slightly better aligned than these other advertising companies, but even that I hate and would get rid of in an instant if possible.

<comment><USER10> It's only marketing. There is no integrated assistant. It's a plain old button that can be used to activate one of these useless voice assistants on your phone because some people like it. If you're like me, you can use it as an extra control to modify noise cancellation.

<comment><USER11> Yeah, you can change the functionality of the button via the Bose app. However, the Bose app is awful.

<comment><USER12> How does the Bose app talk to the device? Wireshark can probably be used to analyze it. Writing a simple free software replacement for the bad app could be a fun project and the result will no doubt be much better than their proprietary software.

<comment><USER13> > How does the Bose app talk to the device?

what options can there possibly be? it uses bluetooth.

> Wireshark can probably be used to analyze it.

bluetooth has reasonable security built in. bose products make use of it.

<comment><USER14> There's a lot of protocols you can run over Bluetooth.

The BT dump tool can be run on the bluetooth device (eg laptop, phone) and so get access to the negotiated crypto keys oe cleartext version of the comms.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> While this is great news for my QC 35's, the newer Bose 700's have me extremely worried for the future of their devices.

Anyone who puts non-tactile touch controls on _headphones_ shouldn't be allowed to design electronics interfaces ever again.

The QC35 had it right with physical controls.

<comment><USER16> I have the 700s, the important controls are buttons. The capacitive interface is for mute, vol up/down, and next song, it's not my first choice but really it works fine.

This is a non-issue.

Edit: lol; my opinions from months of first hand everyday use are wrong, and should be echo chamber hidden by people who have never used the product.

<comment><USER15> Capacitive controls have zero place on any headphones, let alone ones as expensive as these. The fact that you're willing to live with it doesn't mean it's not still a terrible design.

And I consider all of those buttons to be pretty important - I use all of them regularly, including when I'm not right next to my phone.

I just hope the 700's are an aberration, and that Bose goes back to a more practical design next time.

<comment><USER16> > The fact that you're willing to live with it doesn't mean it's not still a > terrible design.

Typical HN smugness.

One person who actually has the product, has used it for months, and has themselves designed capacitive gesture button circuits then went back to traditional buttons - says "they aren't that bad, work fine"...

And a trove of people who have never used the product downvote and tell them they are wrong.

OK.

No; it's not a terrible design. I've maybe twice had to repeat a gesture. It's drag up/down for volume, tap for mute, and drag forward for skip song. It works fine. Where the hell do you get the opinion it's a terrible design if you've never used them?

<comment><USER17> They're not calling you wrong about your experience with the product. They are listening to you say "not that bad", and taking it as completely true. Then they are saying that "not that bad" is unacceptable in a product this expensive.

Or by slight analogy: You rate a product 4 out of 5 stars. If someone that hasn't used the product insists on a different rating, they're being smug and part of the negative trove you've described. But if someone just says "4 out of 5? Not good enough when other models are 5 out of 5." there is nothing wrong with that.

<comment><USER16> That's a wildly inaccurate way to read my post. I rate the 700s as 5 out of 5.

<comment><USER17> "not that bad" is still saying they're worse than normal buttons, even though it's a tiny amount, right?

You giving the overall product a 5/5 isn't the point I was trying to make. I was talking about your rating in the button category, sorry if that wasn't clear, and it was just an example number.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> My goodness. I've been following this issue, and avoiding upgrading my firmware, for about two years now. But this is so incredibly thorough and shows just how seriously they took these concerns, and validating, or invalidating them.

They really dug deep here, and I respect them all the more for it. I've had really good experiences with Bose products, even though they're priced at a slight premium. They're just VERY high quality.

<comment><USER19> Silly question, but how the heck do you update the firmware? I have QC35 and I never realized they could be updated. Do I need to use the app? If I just never use the app am I safe from this bug?

<comment><USER20> Yes, you use the app to upgrade the firmware.

<comment><USER21> Like you have to install the app just to turn noise cancellation on and off? And if you install it, they milk personal details out of your phone?

Or is that a different model?

I would never, ever buy headphones that need an app, for any purpose.

<comment><USER20> They hide the setting not to harvest your data in the privacy policy - you can use the app, make sure you turn off tracking, upgrade the firmware, then delete the app. It makes sense that you need some kind of app to upgrade the firmware. The only thing that is in the app that you can't do from the headphones is the level of noise cancelling, but that doesn't bother me because I always have it set to max.

<comment><USER22> Huh? Pressing the button on the left side cycles NC levels for me with a voice saying "Noise cancellation high / low /off" for me.

If you have that mapped to alexa/ok google/etc, there's some other button combo to hit to cycle the NC level, but totally doable in hardware. (Though, changing the mapping DOES require the app).

<comment><USER20> I don't have a button on the left side, just volume up, stop / start, volume down on the right. Perhaps we're talking about different iterations of the QC35?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> SelfVoice is the problem.

> In several conversations with customers, there was some confusion about > noise cancellation function during a phone call or other Bluetooth HFP > connection.

Yeah, because having multiple bluetooth profiles, one of which has good cancellation and one of which doesn't due to SelfVoice is disastrous UX.

Anything that perturbs the bluetooth settings on sound-producing devices and switches the default connected endpoint is going to trigger a severe degradation of the headphones' noise cancellation and noise floor. There is no light, or button, or obvious cue to indicate that the device is in a special state. Fixing the problem requires understanding this weird, hidden behavior (strike one) and dealing with bluetooth settings (strike two) on a device that isn't the headphone (strike three).

I am very happy to hear that they are doing something about it, because Windows has recently started clearing my repeated efforts to disable the SelfVoice endpoint. Even though I understand the problem completely (which is always the biggest hurdle) dealing with it has recently become a severe enough hassle that I've been considering ditching the Bose on account of it.

<comment><USER24> I bought the QC35-IIs through my works tech budget and was very disappointed to find out how they worked wrt. there being two different voice profiles, where one profile uses this selfvoice thing and has no ANC. This is particularly shite when trying to use it to play games while talking to friends on discord.

Am I understanding you correctly that it's possible to somehow disable this feature or something? If so, can you share?

<comment><USER23> Yeah. Navigate to: Windows Key search > "Sound Settings" > Output > Manage Sound Devices

The "Manage sound devices" panel should show a list of "Output devices" and a list of "Input devices." Click on one to disclose a Test button and a Disable button. You should see your headphones show up twice in the "Output devices" menu. Testing one of them will result in a clean sound, the other will result in shit sound (due to SelfVoice). Press "Disable" on the one with shit sound.

Then do it again next time Windows Update runs and clears your user settings, and again, and again, because apparently clearing settings to default is something that Windows Update does now (I've seen it in other places too).

<comment><USER17> Specifically, the big named releases every six* months, the ones that make a new windows folder, wipe and reinstall all audio devices.

* They're possibly moving to having only the Spring updates do this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Ah.. QC35 I and QC35 II, the headphones that won't turn off, but Bose refuses to make it right for the users:

[https://community.bose.com/t5/Around-On-Ear- Headphones/QC-35...](https://community.bose.com/t5/Around-On-Ear- Headphones/QC-35-I-is-Turning-On-By-Itself/td-p/106140)

Note, the "solution" is buy new headphones if yours are our out of warranty.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bugTnRbnhQ&feature=youtu.be](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bugTnRbnhQ&feature=youtu.be)

<comment><USER25> Ah, I've recently discovered that the on/off switch on my QC35II is actually not a hardware off switch at all. My headphones refused to turn off once, which I believe was triggered by being connected to two devices at once, one of which was trying to use the mic.

The "solution" was to unpair everything and to make sure to only connect to one device at a time. I really wish the switch actually just disconnected the power.

Other than that they've been pretty solid so far.

<comment><USER26> I have the same model, but mine does behave like an on/off button, being enough to solve that problem you had (no sound because some device other is paired) Maybe it's something about a firmware upgrade? I remember there was one in 2018 that enabled an auto turn-off feature past a certain time with no use. I didn't update mine with that or any of the newer ones, so if I forget to turn them off manually they just keep consuming battery.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Impressive report, however their customer support is terrible for such premium products. Have bought 3 sets of headphones over the last 6 years (2xQC25 and 1xQC35).

Each pair of headphones starts to have audio issues right after the 2 year mark, usually resulting in the total loss of audio in one ear, and their support channels will only advise you to buy a new pair.

Have switched to the competitor - Sony WH-1000XM3. So far so good.

But really disappointed by the quality and longevity of Bose's premium products.

Won't buy again, and for such a serious issue to take this much effort for Bose to allow firmware downgrades just confirms that for me.

<comment><USER28> I switched from Bose to Sony and haven't looked back. The capacitive controls on the headphones are crap but I never really use them so it's not a big issue for me. Rock solid for music and getting work done.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> From the comments I see the QC35 is not very durable pair of headphones. I would understand if the price tag would be under 100 euros, but the QC35's are quite expensive. And if they last only a couple of years, I wouldn't count that progress at all!

There are great headphone manufacturers, such as Sennheiser, Beyerdynamic, Focal and Grado, who make excellent studio level headphones that can easily last for decades in use, delivering that beautiful sound and feeling comfortable in daily office use.

I think the biggest problem is having Bluetooth in your headphones, which then requires a battery that is not easily replaced, and requires software and technology that either has bugs or degrades in a faster manner. I'd suggest while sitting in front of your computer, to use a corded pair of quality headphones and keep using them for years to come. Less waste, less money spent, better sound.

I've had Beyerdynamic's dt-880 model since 2003. I could still use them in the office, but them being open I replaced them with the dt-1770 pro model to not annoy my colleagues that much. Brought the 880's home and now with the lockdowns I'm again using them daily while writing software. Just replace the ear pads every five years, clean the drivers with pressurized air and you're ready to go.

<comment><USER30> The 880s aren't wireless, active noise cancelling cans and aren't relevant in this context.

The brands you list have fine build quality, classic headphones based on the same physics and materials dating back about 50 years. They sound great, but they're not particularly novel, nor are they the same kind of product that is discussed here.

<comment><USER31> > The 880s aren't wireless, active noise cancelling cans and aren't relevant > in this context.

Of course they are.

If they provide a substantially better listening experience, at a lower cost and with passive noise-damping and less use of technology prone to failure, that makes them 110% relevant to the discussion at hand.

<comment><USER32> No, they're not. The marketing on the companies own site even agrees they aren't noise canceling.

"The semi-open headphones attenuate ambient noise, but do not exclude it completely"

[https://europe.beyerdynamic.com/dt-880-edition.html](https://europe.beyerdynamic.com/dt-880-edition.html)

These are very different products.

<comment><USER31> Sorry. My bad.

My experience are with the 770s[1], which are closed and has amazingly good passive noise damping. I don't miss ANC one bit.

[1] [https://europe.beyerdynamic.com/dt-770-pro.html](https://europe.beyerdynamic.com/dt-770-pro.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I bought QC 35's a year ago and wish I had sooner. They're very well designed, and reading this makes me respect Bose even more. This is why their brand name is still so trusted.

<comment><USER34> best headphones I've owned, buy them for everyone who asks lol

<comment><USER33> I have studio cans for music, but these are my dailies. They're so convenient for taking calls and make open offices much more bearable.

<comment><USER34> Of course, I'm talking for plebs :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> The degree of investigation is impressive and I commend Bose on this!

However, it does sound like they had a number of issues or regressions in prior versions of the firmware (eg. an update made some units connect to the wrong Bluetooth profile). I hope this demonstrates business reasons why it's important to get your product code right every release. Had they maintained a better reputation for competent product updates, it's unlikely user skepticism would have ballooned this into such a big deal.

</comment><comment><USER36> "An important piece of feedback we've received from the community during this discussion is that you want the ability to downgrade the firmware on your Bose QC35 product. Today, we're re-introducing the ability to downgrade firmware QC35 II to 4.3.6 and QC35 series 1 to 2.5.5 via the Bose BTU site for a limited time."

A limited time? Why? How limited?

<comment><USER37> A better question is why they are letting customers do this at all since the whole article proves that there is no point in downgrading. It seems to only add additional confusion if you ask me, and plays in the hands of customers who claim that there's something wrong with the software even now that Bose has proven beyond all doubt that there is not.

<comment><USER38> My guess: loud, obnoxious, forum participants who won't stop brigading about it. Providing the downgrade – while technologically pointless – will rob those forum participants of their bluster (although they'll probably claim the downgrade is a lie or some other conspiracy).

<comment><USER37> I agree with your guess, what I don't understand is why they would play along with this type of delusion. It's not going to accomplish anything apart from making these people more convinced in the face of opposing evidence that they were right all along.

<comment><USER39> It also gives users the trust of being able to run their preferred firmware on the hardware they own. Then they don't have to avoid upgrading as seen in e.g. this other HN comment [0].

I totally understand dev's wanting their customers to run the latest version for a number of reasons. And it being hard or even impossible for e.g. online services to keep older versions available. It's totally reasonable to have the default setup auto update or strongly push the latest version. But a motivated user wanting to run a specific version should have the ability to do so. Especially when we are talking about hardware.

Yes, some users will be idiots and cause support work. But if the companies behavior indicates no one using the product can be trusted to not act like an unreasonable idiot, it's not a big stretch that customers will think the same about the producer.

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22783345](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22783345)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> > We are exploring options to allow you to modify how [self voice] works via > the Bose Connect app

Yes, please! Shut that fucking thing OFF. The only time I use the cable is because it doesn't have this terrible feature.

Especially when I connect to something like an amateur radio there's zero reason to ruin the sound by mistaking listening to amateur radio as some sort of "call".

<comment><USER41> Wait, isn't that feature only activated when you join a phone call? Why would it be activated for "amateur radio"?

<comment><USER40> I don't know. Maybe the radios are using the "phone call" feature to relay the audio. Maybe they have to, in order for the mic to work if you transmit, without delay.

I've not tried transmitting, because listening is so bad, thanks to this feature.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> The founder, professor Bose, had quite an interesting career and background: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amar_Bose](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amar_Bose)

> His father was an Indian freedom revolutionary[4] who, having been > imprisoned for his political activities, fled Bengal in the 1920s in order > to avoid further persecution by the British colonial police.

> In 2011, Bose donated a majority of the company's non-voting shares to MIT > on the condition that the shares never be sold.

<comment><USER43> This is a great episode about Bose's life and gift: [https://www.20k.org/episodes/thegift](https://www.20k.org/episodes/thegift)

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> I have purchased five or six different pairs of Bose noise-cancelling headphones, but I will never buy another product from them again until they allow customers to revert firmware.

I updated the firmware on my QC35s a couple of years ago, and the ANC got worse. Like, maybe 6 decibels or so worse, with strange white noise. I wrote to them explaining the problem and asked how to revert firmware, and they said it wasn't permitted and instructed me to "turn the device off and on" or something like that as a way to pretend to address the issue and make me go away.

I have only owned two products whose manufacturers refused to solve the problem when a new release of software or firmware ruined the user experience. The first was my Google Nexus 6P that boot-looped itself to death upon startup after an Android upgrade, and the second was my pair of QC35s.

Since then, I don't trust Bose's updates and refuse to update any of my other devices made by them.

<comment><USER45> > until they allow customers to revert firmware.

In this post they're adding an option to do this. Albeit only to a single earlier firmware.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> That's a fantastic way of showing a company is listening to customer feedback and acting upon it, even if there doesn't seem to be anything wrong.

Apple (and many other companies) could learn something from this transparency.

</comment><comment><USER47> Before people start fawning over Bose's handling of this, don't forget they're just like every other data mining company: [https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/consumer- pro...](https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/consumer- products/electronics/891794-bose-must-face-spying-headphones-class-action- lawsuit/)

<comment><USER48> Good point. And, people who care about privacy shouldn't be too excited about having built-in Siri/Google/Alexa integration either.

<comment><USER47> Fortunately costco had/has the old version before they sold their souls to Bezos. Why people want Amazon listening to anything is beyond me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I was fortunate enough to get an expensed pair of QC 35 I's at a previous job. This was a little over 3 years ago now. Never had any of the described issues. Even now they feel and sound great. Battery life may be starting to degrade, which is disappointing since I don't believe there's a way to replace it myself, and Bose probably doesn't offer any service to do it either.

<comment><USER50> I still have brand loyalty to Bose after almost a decade of trade-ins at a discounted price every 2.5 years or so. It's too bad that around 2017 they stopped the trade-in program. The old QC 15s still had one of the nicest "fits" for me, and the 25s were pretty good too. But I wouldn't want to have to keep swapping out AAA batteries or having to carry batteries with me in the case. I did like the old case design better than the new one, seemed flatter somehow. But the 35s going Bluetooth was a game changer for me, especially in connecting two devices at a time. Only thing missing is a USB C port so I don't have to worry about plugging it in the wrong way to charge at night...

<comment><USER21> This strikes me as a terrible history. I would never go back after such experience.

<comment><USER50> Well, the QC 15 was perfect for me for a number of years, as long as I had AAA batteries. And while every new version after had some kind of trade off to it, the QC series has overall been quite reliable, with removable cords, etc. The Bluetooth version added a lot of complexity, but when it works well, it's magic. And it works more often than it doesn't, I just tend to notice the Bluetooth stack bugs more when they occur. Similarly I had to replace a number of QC 15 and 25 cords over the years as they inevitably went bad due to prolonged use and abuse, as it were. The Bose store historically made it very easy to get spare parts and service, though I presume that's changed somewhat today...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Wonder if they're doing anything similar with the "headphones randomly powering on even though the switch is turned off" issue?

<comment><USER52> I had this issue with the QC 35 version 1, and they shipped me replacement headphones for free.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Wow, I am amazed at the level of care. I currently use a QC25, and did not update to 35 because I am not happy about the Siri/Google/Alexa integration. Still, I am definitely floored by the amount of care Bose provides on their product.

I guess my next set of headphones will still be from Bose.

<comment><USER54> I used to have the QC25 until they disappeared from my desk at work. Got the new 700 and holly cow, those are great headphones. I don't even use the app/any integration, just regular bt headphones and they work just great: I can have up to two devices connected simultaneously and switching from one to the other is seamless. I also really like how they work both wireless and there's a wired option as well (they even include the cable). I'm really happy with the upgrade.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> The fact that they reintroduced the ability to downgrade the firmware is very refreshing. Hope more companies will follow suit.

<comment><USER56> only to one specific version. This is not what community was hoping for.

<comment><USER41> Why would you want to downgrade to a different version now that it's clear there is no difference in NC?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> I'm thinking about picking up the QC 35's series 2 or the Sony WH-1000MX3's. Any recommendations? Can either of those turn off the noise canceling tech? I'm not a big fan of noise canceling technologies, I'm just looking for a quality sounding wireless headset to pair with my iphone.

<comment><USER58> They're similar, but I'd say the noise cancelation is a bit better on the sonys. I also prefer the tuning on the sonys, but that's a matter of taste. (I don't own a pair of qc35, but I did swap with a friend for a plane ride). I don't know about the qc35, but on mx3s you can turn on/off the nc features, or cup your hand over the speakers to temporarily pause them. They also have a pretty good bluetooth low energy implementation which makes them last more than 14 hours, but I haven't ever let them fully run down so I don't know the true battery life.

<comment><USER59> I have a two year old (set of?) MDR-1000X (the previous model) and the battery is still working fine. I usually have them on for 6 hours a day - with NC as it comes on by default, and I forget to turn it off - and only charge them once a week.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> Audio "issues" are incredibly subjective. The placebo effect is so strong with audio, which has led to an entire industry of snake oil and hyper subjective audio comments (like many seen in the replies here). Unless you blind A/B test, it is very hard to discern audio differences unless you have been professionally trained. Your ears and perception are most likely lying to you, especially with something as subtle as noice cancellation. I definitely sympathize with Bose here, it is hard to convince people with science when it comes to audio, unfortunately.

</comment><comment><USER61> For what its worth my QC35 right headset stopped working just a month past the 12 month warranty and I had no luck getting the issue redressed.

That's a rather early failure for ~350$ of hardware.

</comment><comment><USER62> Assuming that the report isn't subtly misrepresenting the situation in some way, that's a fantastic job. It adds to my confidence in the hardware/firmware quality of their product.

I do however have lingering concerns about their spyware [0]. Does anyone know if that's been addressed?

[0] [https://fortune.com/2017/04/19/bose-headphones- privacy/](https://fortune.com/2017/04/19/bose-headphones-privacy/)

<comment><USER62> Update: I think my question is partially answered here [1]. They seem to want far more information that I'm interested in sharing with them.

[1] [https://www.bose.com/en_us/legal/privacy_policy.html](https://www.bose.com/en_us/legal/privacy_policy.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> For what it's worth, several of Bose's customers are continuing to refuse to believe this report's conclusion (in several instances, in an aggressively rude/accusatory way).

[https://community.bose.com/t5/Around-On-Ear- Headphones/Bose-...](https://community.bose.com/t5/Around-On-Ear- Headphones/Bose-QC-35-Firmware-4-5-2-Noise-Cancellation- Investigation/td-p/285741)

</comment><comment><USER64> Full disclosure: My primary set is Sennheiser HD600, which I use a lot and love. Excellent sound objectively and subjectively. Worth every cent, despite being available since 1997. They benefit a lot from a headphone amp but still do a decent job without. They are made to last, and should an accident ever break a piece, all parts are replaceable individually without the need for tools. I've had them for several years and they're as good as new.

I have tested QC35 before, on a loan from a coworker. The FR is very good, but the distortion is horrendous. Measurements made on the set confirm by reviewers do confirm my impressions were spot on. Apparently the reason the FR is good is because they have a builtin DSP doing EQ.

When I heard the price, for such bad sounding headphones, I thought about them as a scam. Later, I learned they don't just distort a lot, but are also not made to last. Brand loyalty is high, and the money BOSE spends in marketing plays no small role on this. BOSE devices are expensive and those who buy them get associate the price with quality. When they break, they just buy BOSE again.

<comment><USER65> I own a Sennheiser HD600 and a Bose QC25. They don't race in the same league. The HD600 has better sound quality hands down and I try to use it whenever I can. Where the QC25 shines is the noise canceling. I fly a lot and during a transatlantic flight, Bose is a godsend. It blocks out the engine noise very effectively. I can listen to music, podcasts, videos without cranking up the volume to max. Sometimes I use it in the office to block out office noises. Every other situation the HD600 is better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> I have a QC 35, and I have experienced some of the degrading of sound isolation. After some research I discovered than the pads account for much of it, and they degrade rather quickly, but not faster than any other headphone and I have very expensive headphones. My Sennheiser 650 is >400 usd and is on his third pair of pads.

The QC35 is so great that I developed ear problems for using them too much. So be careful with that.

<comment><USER67> What kind of ear problems? That could refer to any of several very different problems.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> Has anyone personally encountered this problem? Do you believe in this report? Do you think something is missing?

For me, I quite like Bose products because their bluetooth pairing and connectivity seem to be significantly better than what I can get from cheaper brands like Taotronics, etc. I have always found products to be well built, even for full-plastic devices that are subject to more wear and tear than they deserve.

<comment><USER69> I don't know if it was _this_ problem, but I had an issue after firmware update this week. I have had the QC35 II headphones since 2017, and I love them. I also _never_ update software unless something is broken—I don't care about new features, I just want things to keep working. This past week I had to launch the Bose app to reconnect my phone to the QC35's and it suggested a firmware update. I very rarely launch the app, so I let it proceed. They became _completely_ unusable after the update. The audio quality was awful, and noise cancelling virtually disappeared.

I was able to determine that the problem was the QC35 microphone was stuck "on", so it was attenuating the audio and amplifying ambient noise. I've had similar problems before with other Bluetooth devices and suspected that the firmware change caused them to identify or connect to the wrong Bluetooth device profile.

Fortunately, restarting my phone resolved the problem. I don't know why that worked, and I don't know whether it was the phones fault or the headphones fault. It just affirmed my reasons for avoiding software updates.

<comment><USER70> I've had this issue (and posted about it with several people chiming in). I tend to toggle manually the input back to the macbook and it usually works. Kinda annoying though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> There was a time where I likely spent more time on an airplane than some pilots. For years, I used their older QC3 all day long.. traveling and working. At some point, well past any warranty, they started to make a popping sound. They essentially just swapped it out for free.

I picked up a pair of the A20 aviation headsets, just before they announced the Bluetooth update. (I also fly, but when I do they are the bug smashers, not the commercial ones) They turned around and cross shipped a new module for my headset free of charge.

I did end up replacing the older QC3's with one of the QC35 wireless headsets. Nothing but positive things to say about their kit. For the most part, it has been used hard and worked flawlessly. When I have had an issue - they took really good care of me. Would reccomend.

(With the QC35, I've really not needed to do anything with them. They just connected to my Linux box and Andriod tables OOTB.)

</comment><comment><USER72> And what about their planned obsolescence strategy like the right ear simultaneously[0] stop working on everybody's QC25s with no replacement or repair option?

[0]: [https://community.bose.com/t5/In-Ear-Headphones/Right-ear- st...](https://community.bose.com/t5/In-Ear-Headphones/Right-ear-stopped- working-QC25/td-p/37207)

<comment><USER48> > ... _" The right side stopped working in April 2018. I got them replaced and > the operator gave me "one time only exception" to the replacement fee"_...

So, for folks suggesting Apple et al follow Bose's lead, it's clear they all follow the same play book i.e. a design flaw isn't their problem the moment the warranty is up.

I'm someone who will escalate and put in the effort to be righted when a company does wrong, but it would sure be nice if companies didn't outright lie, coverup or have hidden warranties/"you're an exception" when they screw up!

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> Apple's AirPods Pro have a similar issue where a firmware update nerfed the noise-cancelling[1]. Apple stopped pushing the update, but I'm been stuck with this bad firmware for nearly four months now.

The firmware updates are installed silently in the background while AirPods are charging, so I didn't have any choice in the matter.

FWIW - I agree with installing updates automatically silently in the background because it solves a ton of issues for both developers and 99% of users. But the developers must thoroughly test the performance in real-world prior to pushing updates to users _AND_ offer a way to downgrade.

1\. [https://9to5mac.com/2020/01/18/airpods-pro-noise- cancellatio...](https://9to5mac.com/2020/01/18/airpods-pro-noise-cancellation- update/)

</comment><comment><USER74> Product management master class right there.

</comment><comment><USER75> I noticed other threads complained about lack of CHANGELOG for firmware updates.

I don't know what they have that they think is so secret, that thry can't tell us what bugs were fixed.

As an engineer I dislike this lack of transparency.

On the other hand these headphones mostly just work, apart from a few annoyance with reconnect time, etc.

</comment><comment><USER76> Their soundsports on the other hand are just bad at connecting to a bluetooth device and staying in sync at >1.5m distance.

I've tried it with 4 different phones now, and they just cut out every time.

Bose has been kind enough to exchange several pairs at no cost and hassle, but its not a problem with one of them, its all of them

<comment><USER77> Same here. Suffering with Soundsport Free since I got them. They frequently disconnect even when I'm near my phone. Also, the audio/video lag issue is a total deal breaker. Bose seems to be the only one who has such issues.

<comment><USER76> For what its worth I have also seen the same behavior with Jabra wireless headphones, they might use the same chip/stack under the hood though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> Maybe I'm unlucky, but even keeping my QC25s in the case when not wearing them, I had two fail due to internal hardware issues just past warranty. Support was a joke. I'd have felt like a fool the next time so I switched to Sony's line, zero issues in the last 4 years and I've traveled twice as much.

</comment><comment><USER79> Now THAT is how you do a root cause analysis. I don't own a pair of these headphones, but I'm sending this out to my coworkers as an example of thorough work. Very very well done!

Ironically... also looking at purchasing their product

</comment><comment><USER80> This is fascinating.

Seems almost a little overkill, but if their reputation is at stake then you want to make sure.

Now I just wish there were a similar investigation into the AirPods Pro update -- some people swearing it massively impaired the noise reduction, other people saying there's no difference and some tiny subset of people are always going to be imagining things (or taking a different train or working in a new office, like this article).

At least the idea of being able to downgrade firmware ought to put people's minds at ease... but I can also see why technically that might be annoying to implement.

</comment><comment><USER81> Bose have had a few bad software updates historically. My sound bar lost its bass in an early update which they eventually resolved, also they made some promises about airplay 2 which never happened on some devices. Privacy policy + devices phoning home is questionable.

QC35's are a major seller for them so it's good to see the effort going in to investigating the issue. Hopefully the effort gone in to investigating carries through to better software in general so it's easy for them to verify what's changed and also better release procedures again so they can reduce the post release debugging they had to do here.

</comment><comment><USER82> This is amazing! It's really nice to see how much Bose cares. Contrast that with Apple for instance: they are both selling products on which they emphasize quality and craftsmanship at above market prices. Yet Apple never ever acknowledges QA issues until a few years after the product is out, and does all it can to pretend everything is fine. Really impressed by Bose. I would seriously consider purchasing their headphones if active noise cancellation didn't make me feel like my nose is all congested and didn't give me a headache.

</comment><comment><USER83> There's a potential systemic bias involved in this that the report does not consider (unsurprisingly). What if the particular firmware caused hearing damage that now causes these users to think the noise-cancelling performance has deteriorated? I have no reason to think this is the case, but wow, what a confounder to have to deal with!

</comment><comment><USER84> I love my QC35 headphones except one thing- the bluetooth range is very small, like 20 feet? AirPods go much farther from my phone/laptop without breaking up. If I just cup my hands over the outside of the right headphone, the signal cuts out. Or if I hold my phone in my left hand while walking, it cuts out some times. Sounds great as long as my phone is close enough though.

</comment><comment><USER85> "our full engineering analysis determined that the degradation in all cases was the result of hardware related issues with earcushions, aftermarket parts, or mechanical integrity"

Specifically, damage caused by the customer from use or misuse, or buying inadequate replacement parts from 3rd party manufacturers.

</comment><comment><USER86> I had to replace the ear cushion 6 month ago, and I couldn't find Bose's original replacement parts. I noticed the ANR perfs dropped a little bit after the replacement - something similar to what they described in the article.

Is Bose selling original ear cushions somewhere ?

<comment><USER87> They sell it on their website (in the US). You can also call them to place an order .

</comment></comment><comment><USER88> I have a pair of QC 35s which I can only use low/no NC on due to vertigo issues with "high" mode. Looks like Bose has done an extremely impressive job of fleshing out the problem. Well done.

</comment><comment><USER89> So is the general consensus that we can safely update now?

Honestly I'm not great at noticing sound quality differences, unless there's a huge difference. But this one seemed to affect so many people I stayed away.

</comment><comment><USER90> Has there been any effort at making an open source version of these noise cancelling headphones? It would seem to make for a pretty neat project.

</comment><comment><USER91> Unrelated to this, the Bose aviation headset has been sold out and unavailable in most of the world for about a year now.

<comment><USER92> Which model....? Looks okay to me

[https://www.sportys.com/pilotshop/aviation-headsets/bose- avi...](https://www.sportys.com/pilotshop/aviation-headsets/bose-aviation- headsets.html)

<comment><USER91> Holy cow, they're back! I just checked stores in my part of the world. The proflight has been out for ages, both online and in stores all over Australia, New Zealand, and Singapore. I've been searching since early last year.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER93> While we're at it, any recommendations for having phone calls in noisy environments?

<comment><USER93> Preferably true wireless ones

</comment></comment><comment><USER94> I hope all companies in this world will care customers like Bose does.

</comment><comment><USER95> TLDR: PEBCAK

But damn they spent a lot of time to get to that conclusion.</comment>


A Linear Clock - <AUTHOR> http://home.tiscali.nl/annejan/swf/timeline.swf

<comment><USER2> You won't be able to use this clock on December 31st to see it switch year since 2004 comes after 2010 :( There should always be an extra year after the current year.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Actually there's a better version here: <http://www.beeks.eu/>

That version fixes the problem with the year.</comment>


Ask HN: Know anyone who's side project IP was legally challenged by the day job? - <AUTHOR> On this post here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20019975 - and many others like it, I've seen folks get quite worried about working on side projects while working for the man.
In the comments I asked the question "Does anyone have any anecdotes about companies enforcing this rule and coming after a founder that started a side project while working for the company?"
I got 16 upvotes even though the question was quite far down the page.
Since I've never had that many upvotes on a question so far down I am thinking maybe other folks would be interested to hear about real world cases like this.
Does it happen often? Does it ever happen? All anecdotes welcome! <comment><USER2> Well it depends you had some criminal charges filed before like the whole Waymo thing, sometimes not only can you get sued but some employers assert such a level of ownership over your brain that doing a side job in some cases has lead to criminal prosecution and jail time

</comment><comment><USER3> Amazon

</comment><comment><USER4> Oculus</comment>


Wikileaks confirms Ecuador cut off Assange internet access - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/788099178832420865?ref_src=twsrc^tfw <comment><AUTHOR> Technically a 'state actor' but actually quite lame.</comment>


Windows 10 Lock Screen Leaks Clipboard Contents - <AUTHOR> https://hexatomium.github.io/2017/02/15/windows10-clipboard-lockscreen/ <comment><USER2> Reminds me of: [http://i.imgur.com/rG0p0b2.gif](http://i.imgur.com/rG0p0b2.gif) A lock screen should just ask for a password, period. Add more stuff and it will be more likely to be bypassed.

<comment><USER3> Is this a real thing?

<comment><USER4> It was, on computers 20+ years ago.</comment></comment></comment>


Amazon can already ship to 72% of US population in a day, map shows - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/05/amazon-can-already-ship-to-72percent-of-us-population-in-a-day-map-shows.html <comment><USER2> I own a decent number of Amazon shares. I'm sure they can ship most places, but to any Amazon management folks reading this - is the longer term plan to kill Amazon.com the store? The experience has gotten somewhat akin to EBay. It seems like it's intentional, but I can't tell. There are any number of shady sellers selling the item I want to buy. I have to manually click often times to ensure I'm buying from Amazon. Even then, a few times I've received the wrong item in the wrong box. I digress but despite your earnings call and all the financial disclosures, I still have no idea what you guys are doing.

<comment><USER3> I strongly suspect this is intentional. It feels as if amazon is doing the subcontractor/gig-economy scam, just slowly.

Amazon is attempting to shift everything to being 3rd party. That way they're a middleman who gets a cut of everything sold, but without any risk. The risk is all on the sellers, who are can be at Amazon's whims, and on the buyers who get garbage from scammers. But sellers can come and go and the customer can't keep track of which sellers are actually trustworthy.

We can already see this gradual slide with how counterfeits work on Amazon. You can't tell if or when you'll get a counterfeit. Even Sold By Amazon is no guarantee since Amazon will mix 3rd party seller goods into the same bin.

This is pure MBA thinking. They remove risk to the business and the need to have buyers of bulk goods to list them. They don't have to keep their own stock anymore. Sure they run a warehouse business too, but the risk of holding good too long is someone else's problem: The 3rd party sellers. And still they keep getting a cut of everything sold.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> You know, if Brick & Mortars entered some sort of alliance, they could ship _same day_ deliveries to an equally large chunk of the population.

<comment><USER5> I made the mistake of online ordering from Home Depot and they "conveniently" shipped from a local store. Only problem is that they apparently have a habit of reusing SKUs and sent me an older model that I didn't order.

Given a chance, brick and mortars will fuck everything up. Guaranteed.

<comment><USER6> >Given a chance, brick and mortars will fuck everything up. Guaranteed.

Let's not pretend Amazon are innocent of fuck ups like this. I'm a semi regular shopper with Amazon (uk) and in the last 12 months I've had: \- used products sold as new \- products sent by Amazon's own courier service for "next day delivery" show up after 3 days \- flat out wrong items sent \- previews for books sent in place of actual books \- received knock off cables when ordering manufacturer cables.

That's not to consider the mess of trying to order goods from Amazon and figuring out when they'll arrive. Searching for "prime" or sold by Amazon doesn't actually guarantee next day delivery on rh item, nor does it guarantee the item will be correct.

Their only saving grace is that every time I have a problem, I can resolve it with live chat, they send a replacement and a courier picks up the old item from my office (if they even bother asking for it back)

<comment><USER5> Fixing Amazon mistakes is relatively painless.

With Home Depot their phone support was 100% useless and I had to physically go to the store the item shipped from. I made sure the new product was on the shelf and tried to do a simple exchange. Unfortunately the duplicate SKU was a problem and the price had increased since I paid for the order so the drone wanted me to pay the difference. That wasn't going to happen so my time had to be further wasted arguing with them over their mistake.

<comment><USER6> Yeah that's awful, and like I said, Amazon's policy of "refund and we'll pick it up" if there's a problem has kept me shopping there.

My latest issue was a clearly used item being sold as new, and it was damaged. The price had increased since I ordered it, and with one live chat they couriered me a replacement, and picked up the old one, at no cost to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Honestly I think this map shows just how empty the rest of the country is.

<comment><USER8> [https://xkcd.com/1138/](https://xkcd.com/1138/)

<comment><USER9> If it were true for this example, St. Louis metro and Kansas City metro would be swapped.

EDIT: Looks like the population ranking has swapped! My apologies!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> There are substantial margins to be had in over-the-road freight. The launch of the Amazon Freight platform last week is a clear indication Amazon knows this.

Managing an enormous seller marketplace is almost as fraught as shopping on one. I can understand why Amazon wants to act as the broker in every aspect of the retail transaction. As a third-party broker you're shielded from much of the liability while reaping much of the benefit.

Unfortunately, third-party brokers are limited in the kinds of interventions that first-parties can bring to bear during a service failure. Walmart, Target, et al., can fix a wayward transaction much more quickly and cheaply than Amazon can by virtue of maintaining many well-staffed warehouses, i.e., stores.

</comment><comment><USER11> While this discussion is about Amazon's shipping coverage, surely I cannot be the only one concerned that Amazon is going to destroy (more than it has already done) many other competitors and that consumers would be left with one large store that can exploit them any way it wishes to! This is increasingly scary to me, since Amazon is now the largest online retailer (in my knowledge) in India too. Walmart's purchase of Flipkart (which is a local online store that started like Amazon did and grew big) doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

<comment><USER12> There's plenty of room for competitors to breathe on the niche end of e-commerce. Etsy, for example is doing great, and I don't see how Amazon could take their market at all.

Also, physical stores clearly have some value for Amazon themselves to be opening them, and at that point they're going to have a much tougher time competing - cool tech notwithstanding.

<comment><USER13> Amazon has actually tried getting in there ("Amazon Handmade"), but not with much success as far as I can tell.

But Etsy also has some of the problems that Amazon has: They've not done a great job at enforcing their "handmade" standard, and you'll find resellers of off-the-shelf mass.produced stuff there too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Haha, except their last mile delivery which is really flaky because they use their own logistics and drivers

<comment><USER15> Last mile, in general, is shit. Not only Amazon's. That's where most innovation is needed.

<comment><USER14> Ups, fedex, dhl for last mile in the USA is still 100x better than Amazon's last mile (yes, that's two orders of magnitude !!)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is presumably for things shipped by Amazon, which seems really rare (for me) on Amazon.

<comment><USER17> Really? It seems like most sellers use "fulfilled by amazon" so they can take part of Prime.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Yea, but not all at the same time, and not for a consistent period of time.

</comment><comment><USER19> Already? I'm surprised they aren't at 100%.

<comment><USER20> I mean Alaska would be tough, also Hawaii

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> well that's impressive!

</comment><comment><USER22> So now it's about 10% as good as Taobao

<comment><USER23> Taobao is ecommerce with Chinese characteristics (i.e. clown-world style) and I say this as someone who has been using Taobao multiple times a week for years.

There's having to get on AliWangWang and chat up sellers to make sure they actually have stock of the items they're listing for sale. If you optimistically order without spending ten minutes going back and forth with them beforehand, your purchases may not ship because one of the items is out of stock or no longer available in that size/color (despite it being listed w/claimed inventory of 9898998 pieces in stock) and when you do get on WangWang, you've got to waste more time haggling over individual item cancellations, substitutions, etc.

And even if everything you want is in stock, you're lucky enough to be ordering when the seller isn't away from their phone/computer because they're asleep/eating/whatever and so is available to confirm this, they're as likely as not to wait until a bit later to confirm your shipping address. If you're not on WangWang to respond to the shipping address confirmation query, then your order sits around unshipped until you do (and until they read your confirmation).

When you do receive your purchases, you can expect them to be cellophane- envelope wrapped or rolled up in clingfilm, which is usually sheathed in a layer of Mainland grit and grime (hence the cellophane/clingfilm) and this in turn is often packed in crumpled Chinese newspapers or scores of the foam webbing collars one sees used around individual apples, pears, etc. in supermarkets here.

If you live in China or HK/Macao, then you'll probably use Taobao much more than Amazon, but only because of the shipping costs. Actually enjoying using Taobao after having used Amazon, though, would require a strong masochistic streak.

<comment><USER24> Don't lie about your experience living in China. There is already too much China-related misinformation on HN.

For 99% of the time, you go straight to click-n-buy which should get your order delivered on time, and for the 1% you prefer to talk to the seller the option is a blessing, not a curse.

I used to work for Alibaba.

<comment><USER23> Speaking truths that you find objectionable is not lying.

If you haven't encountered these issues, then I'm happy for you. For my wife and I, phantom inventory is a regular problem. Usually, we can catch the problem over WangWang, but it's not unusual for us to place the order and, just before paying, give the order number to the seller and have them confirm they've got it before paying, then pay and a few days later when the order hasn't shipped, message them again and get an apology and a sad story about one of the items being out of stock or only available in a different version.

Shopping on Amazon is like buying in Target and shopping on Taobao or Tmall (a slightly better experience w/re to seller flakiness) is akin to buying from a shabby flea market. If the nearest Target is a few hours' drive away and the flea market is ten minutes' drive from your house, you'll shop at the flea market but it's not really an enjoyable experience.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This assumes each of their distribution centers has 100% of Amazon's catalog available.</comment>


[discussion] Distributed everything against multiple jurisdictions - <AUTHOR>

Distributed cryptography/services in multiple jurisdictions is the only permanent solution to continuous pervasive government infringement on peoples freedoms. Where keys or parts of data or encryption or generic computing services rely on a chain of services distributed globally in a tor/onion style chain comprised of computing resources guaranteed to reside in multiple jurisdictions. Something like the Ceph file system but for everything.<p>(Un)fortunately there will be a technical solution to eliminating or severely limiting any governments ability to perpetrate mass surveillance on their own or other nations citizens. The current situation is untenable. I wish it didn't have to be this way but when the "beacon" of freedom, especially Internet Freedom of the sort the USA has been fostering and encouraging over the last few decades, has undergone such a complete turn around what other choice is there?<p>Thoughts? <comment><USER2> Solution: don't depend on a provider

<comment><USER3> So, meshnet? [https://projectmeshnet.org](https://projectmeshnet.org)</comment></comment>


Career Advice From Bill Watterson - <AUTHOR> http://imgur.com/gallery/V6KoHbF

<comment><USER2> Original source (and higher quality than the imgur gallery):

[http://zenpencils.com/comic/128-bill-watterson-a- cartoonists...](http://zenpencils.com/comic/128-bill-watterson-a-cartoonists- advice/)

and what the heck, I submitted it: xxx (argh, the dupe detector didn't see the original one: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6281864](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6281864), please use that.)

</comment><comment><USER3> This made me want to revisit this -> [http://imgur.com/tUzAL](http://imgur.com/tUzAL)

</comment><comment><USER4> Easy to say for a multi-millionaire. So, the advice is: get a great job as a cartoonist, make $450 million and then quit.

<comment><USER5> No, I think the advice is, figure out a material lifestyle that you can feed with a reasonable job, so that you have time left to enjoy LIFE!

<comment><USER4> Without a good income source, a life filled with things that matter to you is very difficult. Watterson has presented a false alternative.

<comment><USER6> Hm. Live outside the city, close to family, doing something creative doesn't have to cost much. Its a true alternative, lived by millions.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Chinese see U.S. debt as weapon - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/10/chinese-see-us-debt-as-weapon/

<comment><USER3> _At the State Department, spokesman P.J. Crowley dismissed the economic threat as potentially self-defeating. "That would be biting the nose to spite the face," Mr. Crowley said. "The economies of the United States and China are intertwined."_

The effect will be to lower the dollar value which would be _good news_. (That is how Argentina came out of its Debt Crisis). It will also drive manufacturing back to the United States, where it belonged in the first place.

I always advocated that America should have imported the cheaper labor - <USER2> it did for many years - rather than exported the jobs.

Bottom line wish for it, if you live in the States.

<comment><USER4> Uhm, what? For a developed country, the US has very cheap labor already. And there are minimum wages laws to deal with as well. How exactly would the US compete with labor as cheap as it is in China?

I can't imagine you actually mean slavery here (and I'm not convinced that would be cheaper in any case, morals aside), but I don't know what you could mean.

<comment><USER3> On most manufactured goods the labor component is not as high as people think. Assume an industry where the labor portion is 30%. By a combination of a lower dollar value as well as better efficiencies and better automation it is not unlikely to end up with a product which is perhaps within a 15% difference of a comparative Asian one. A 15% difference will easily be marketable for a better quality product. (If you factored transportation costs it even looks better).

I don't mean slavery, I believe in a living wage, but I am sure if one does the sums there are a lot of industries that could be rejuvenated if policy could be redirected properly.

One of the problems of the US is its large internal market which resulted in the average US firm not to be geared for exports. This also needs to be addressed. Let me give you an example, I worked in Dubai three years back (large construction industry) on an average quote for machinery that typically goes into large buildings say Fire Pumps the range of prices would be:

US 100K (non-negotiable) US 90-105K (European very negotiable) Asian 85K (negotiable)

Order placed normally with European firm for US 88K

Any factory with not a full order book could marginally cost the products and have a full order book.

<comment><USER4> Ok, fair enough. I suppose in the case of some of our manufacturing industries the labor was sent oversees not because it had to be fundamentally cheaper, but because it was easier than dealing with the unions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Don't tell me that they only thought that the Chinese might do something like that now, it's not as if that wasn't a predictable move.

 _Of course_ the Chinese will use US debt as a weapon, just like the US would use it if the situation were reversed.

Don't forget that Russia crashed because of being unable to keep up with the spending patterns of the US, not because of some moral overweight or military pressure. Their economic structure wasn't capable of matching the US and the Afghanistan war (the previous one, the one 9/11 was an outgrowth of) sealed the deal.

The US is in between a rock and a hard place economically when confronted with China, a massive sell-off could destabilize the dollar to the point that traders would favour other currencies (most likely the Euro), and that would accelerate the fall. If you live in a glass house you should not throw with stones.

<comment><USER6> If China declares unrestricted war, and attempts to use debta as a weapon, we have a very simple response: "Dear world, all T-Bills we sold to China are hereby repudiated in response to their hostile acts."

Or, to paraphrase: When you owe China $1000, you've got a problem. When you owe China $800 billion, China has a problem.

<comment><USER4> At which point your currency/bonds are worthless to everyone who doesn't have to pay taxes with them since you look for reasons to break your promises when things don't go your way.

<comment><USER6> A single repudiation in response to hostile acts, which occurred once in 80 years will certainly make everyone dump US debt?

I doubt it. Maybe we will be downgraded from AAA to AA, but I doubt we would see more than that. In contrast, China would lose $600-800 billion and anyone else who wants to use debt as a weapon would think twice.

<comment><USER7> I think you're underestimating the effect of the US pulling something like that. One of the main pillars of the US's strength is the absolute reliability and inviolability of its government debt. Attempting to unilaterally annul that debt, and for such capricious reasons, and I imagine the consequences would be both immediate and profound.

<comment><USER6> China engaging in open hostilities against us is "capricious"?

<comment><USER7> Yes, because it has nothing to do with the debt. And of course China would accuse the US of starting the war just so it could do that.

Anyway, it's never going to happen. America's not going to start WWIII over Taiwan, talk about lose-lose.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I pointed this out last month. Got downvoted, though.

      How long do you think Taiwan is going to last as an
      autonomous entity, now that it can no longer rely on the
      US for military support, because the US is in hock to the
      PRC?

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1050622>

<comment><USER9> True, true ... but this threat only works if the PRC _keeps buying our debt_. If they stop, _they_ have the problem of getting the outstanding debt redeemed or writing it off, and they are of no use to us going forward (at least in this narrow area).

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> A sort of side note: I suspect what's got the PLA _really_ upset is the proposed sale of Patriot PAC-3s to the ROC (this is the dedicated ballistic missile killer version, with four smaller missiles in each launcher cell).

You don't have to have a totally effective ABM system to make a first strike difficult to impossible, since your opponent _can't choose which missiles get through_. I.e. to be absolutely sure you take out a particular target, you have to massively saturate it ... and you can't afford to do that with all the first priority targets.

</comment><comment><USER10> "A group of senior Chinese military officers" sees US debt as a weapon. Which of course they would, however, whether the civilian leadership shares their view is far less certain. I suspect that China's civilian leadership are far more worried about maintaining sufficient economic growth to avoid civil unrest and uprising, obliterating the US economy is about the last thing they will want to do.</comment>


How to be a startup founder (phrase edition) - <AUTHOR> https://www.makerpad.co/blog/how-to-be-a-startup-founder-phrase-edition <comment><USER2> It's not just founders... I think these phrases have seeped into every phase of the startup growth path.</comment>


Toyota Humanoid Robot Runs At 7 Km/hr - Awesome Vid - <AUTHOR> http://singularityhub.com/2009/07/29/toyota-humanoid-robot-runs-at-7-kmhr/

<comment><USER2> I thought Toyota was pretty good until I followed the link in the article to Big Dog. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1czBcnX1Ww> Big Dog is truly awesome. It runs, jumps, recovers from slips, climbs over rubble, ...

<comment><USER3> Amazing what an Industrial Military Complex can do with half the US Budget. I'd like to see them put some money into space myself but robots are good too.

<comment><USER4> Arguably, putting money into robots _is_ putting money into space. Along with a lot of other things, too. Robots have already long since passed through the hype cycle and now we're firmly sitting at the end of the cycle in "ho-hum", but it's worth taking a moment to realize just what this all means, and that the old sci-fi predictions may not have happened on schedule but are about to start popping up.

While everyone's busy moaning about the economy and how terrible everything is, I've been looking down the road five or ten years and I see amazing things coming at us, _fast_.

<comment><USER5> OK, I'll bite, what's a few of the most amazing things we'll see in the next five years?

<comment><USER4> I don't see a lot of household robotics in that time frame, but I think we're going to see a new generation of industrial robots. Some of them have already started to pop up, and robots like this story will continue that trend.

Right now, robots only work in spaces explicitly designed for them, which has really limited their effectiveness. They're going to be able to move beyond that into more human spaces, which has two major advantages: A lot of human spaces exist, and those spaces are set up to do more different things, which robots will be able to participate in. An assembly line is a fine thing, but not terribly flexible. (Though increasingly, this is a fuzzy line, and the line will get fuzzier; indeed, this is one of the effects I am anticipating.)

Computer vision seems to have taken a new step forward lately, and while they're still miles away from "full human vision" (which is AI-strong, ultimately), they're moving from total toy problems into really useful problems.

Brain interaction is also moving forward lately.

Now, you might say I'm not being specific. Well, here's why. In the five-to- ten year timescale, what I see is that where today these things are still the cutting edge of research, in the five-to-ten year timeframe this is going to be available to small startups and dedicated hobbyists. I don't know _exactly_ what will be made of advanced computer vision and smart robots and direct brain interaction and another five-to-ten years of hardware development and two guys in a garage (oh, and we'll still have the internet, of course, and pervasive cellular connections), but I find it quite likely that it'll be very significant... in exactly the same way the Internet is significant. It may take a genius to push the frontier of computer vision or robotics, but thanks to the miracle of programming, it won't take geniuses to apply them in new ways.

Also, I could probably go on for another three or four times longer, but this _is_ an HN comment, not an essay. (Though maybe I should make it a blog post.)

You wake up today and it's much the same as yesterday, but you know, look back at what the Internet has done to so many industries in the past ten years, and what it has yet to do, and I think you start to get a reference frame for what we may be looking at with the convergence of some of this stuff. I know I'm not giving you product names and the bullet-point feature lists, but that would be almost exactly like me trying to predict Facebook back in 1990. Even those who were on the right track in the broad sense were wrong in many ways... but they were right that big things were coming.

Big things are coming.

<comment><USER6> Here's a specific technology that's going to be a huge boon to robotics in the next 5-10 years: Flash LIDAR cameras. This is the technology behind the XBox 360's "Project Natal", but it's a lot more than a game controller. A Flash LIDAR camera directly senses the distance to every object seen by the camera by measuring the time-of-flight of a reflected laser pulse. With accurate distance data for every pixel a lot of really hard computer vision problems suddenly become much, much eaiser.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> What's the current state of development on Dexter compared to this? <http://anybots.com/abouttherobots.html>

<comment><USER8> Creepy/Uncanny looking. While it is doing the dishes by day, it will come to you at night, while you are asleep, and MURDER you!

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I am not interested in a roomba because I don't see it getting in around and behind the toilet, the place I most hate to clean. Sweeping the wide open floors is easy enough to not even be worth $50.

But something like the above, that has:

Enough hand eye coordination to catch a rolling ball.

Enough facial recognition to sort of be able to tell people apart, like a human who's bad with faces.

Enough speech parsing to understand simple command even if you have to repeat them a few times.

Enough knowledge, I'm thinking something like Wolfram Alpha here, to able to be instructed to perform simple tasks.

Then it could do simple tasks like clean behind the toilet or work the fryolator at McDonald's. And if it's mass manufactured and cheap enough to build and cheap enough to buy, then we could see something interesting.

The slow uptake of humanoid robots into the everyday workforce. How long before we have robot janitors?

<comment><USER10> I love my roomba!

It single-handedly licked my kitty-litter tracking problem. it keeps my place completely swept on a weekly basis (I've a small studio loft, nothing huge) - preventing me from stepping on the odd tiny rock that was drug in by my workboots. It devours dust/hair bunnies which come with long hair and a cat. I never swept so the 120$ woot price on the roomba has changed my place from gritty to well kept.

Altho damn, now I wish it scrubbed the floor behind the toilet.

Back to the meat there - I think that the next advance in robotics is going to be alongside artificial limbs and human assistance devices. AI introduction into society seems to receive such strong philosophical opposition that I doubt we'll see much in the next 10 years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The high-speed footage was most interesting to me. In terms of the "uncanny valley" and my personal reaction to the robot's movement, I find that it's still not human to me... but I think it's starting to crawl up the side towards human-looking. In terms of the traditional graphic (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mori_Uncanny_Valley.svg> ), I think this thing is somewhere between the prosthetic hand and the bunraku puppet, on the higher end of that range.

YMMV.

</comment><comment><USER11> I wonder why they don't build humanoid robots more like monkeys. The reason for robots to be humanoid is to enable them to move in spaces made for humans, right? Monkeys can do that too, only better, because they have much longer arms and can use their arms to help with walking without falling as well as reach higher up without being taller.

Sometimes I get the feeling that making robots as similar as possible to humans is a goal in itself, and that, I think, is not a useful dogma.

<comment><USER12> Hm, if monkeys are better suited for human environments than humans, why don't we look like monkeys? There must be some advantage to human proportions?

<comment><USER11> Which one? You're implying that all things are best the way they are because everything trends toward perfection. Having tried quite a lot of office furniture recently I can report that humans have not figured out what's best for human proportions :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Make the 3 laws mandatory now!

<comment><USER4> Every single three laws story is a story about how bad an idea the three laws are. I am always amazed and amused at how many people miss this.

And Asimov was right. Alas, it will not be that easy.

<comment><USER14> The Asimov stories illustrate exploits on his own 3 laws. But how can you fix that? Embedding a full robotic-oriented legal system in their little brains does not seem to be the answer neither. I think we have to admit that robots will be far from perfect. They will make mistakes. They will stumble and fall. They mill misjudge situations. Like we humans do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Interesting that it runs on the balls of its feet rather than using the heel- first running that running shoes tend to promote. Is the barefoot ball-first gait easier to implement?

<comment><USER16> The ball-first movement is much more natural for humans too! Running shoes promote rather un-biomechanically sound forms of locomotion. I think in 100 years modern shoes will be considered with the sense of horror footbinding is regarded today.

<comment><USER17> 100 years might be an overstatement: <http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/07/barefoot/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> That looks good, but with that gait it's clearly going to have problems with uneven surfaces. It needs to lift its feet more.

</comment><comment><USER19> You guys are totally missing the best part!

The robot is named "Asimo".

[Eric Cartman voice] "You can trust Awesom-o. In fact, you should tell Awesom-o all your most personal secrets. Awesom-o will not make fun of you or tell your secrets to other people and stuff."

<comment><USER20> No, Honda's robot is named Asimo, and it's been named that for many years now.</comment></comment>


ASP.NET MVC - Living in a Web Forms World - <AUTHOR> http://blog.eworldui.net/post/2008/05/ASPNET-MVC---Living-in-a-Web-Forms-World.aspx <comment><USER2> Oh kyro - you've committed the sin of posting a Microsoft programming language on YC. Shame on you.</comment>


Chrome killed my extension and won't tell me why - <AUTHOR> https://blog.lipsurf.com/part-ii-after-3-years-of-work-chrome-killed-my-extension-and-wont-tell-me-why/ <comment><USER3> What people seem to be missing is that this isn't a complaint -- it's a call to form effectively a union:

 _Therefore, we are starting a group today for Chrome Extension developers to work together in check with CWS. It 's not a technical support channel, nor a platform to get attention when CWS is unresponsive. It's a place for Chrome Extension developers to rally together and discuss improving the foundation we stand on (it also won't be hosted nor managed by Google).

United, we can have a stronger, common voice to:

Pressure Google Chrome to allow for 3rd party extension stores. This would break down the walled garden of extensions, give extension developers a leveler playing field, and lower the risk of getting wiped out on CWS's whim.

2\. Pressure CWS to be more fair and communicative with extension publishers.

Canned emails about rejections with only general policy information are "lose- lose" for publishers and CWS alike. Both parties waste time because of all the guesswork involved currently — especially when CWS makes a mistake._

<comment><USER4> Note that Chrome Extension developers are not employees of Google, but rather disparate businesses, so it'll be difficult to both successfully put pressure on Google w.r.t. terms of business and not fall afoul of anti-trust laws.

<comment><USER5> Is this true?

How would this be different than the Author's Guild negotiating ebook rates with libraries/Amazon? It seems like lots of industries have lobbying groups that represent multiple companies -- or is there an extra nuance here I'm missing?

<comment><USER6> Broadly no, because the barrier to entry for being a web developer is low, though there may be some subtlety depending on the exact actions the group takes. A high barrier to entry business would more easily face allegations of anti-trust and collision, eg all of the car dealerships in an area working together to keep prices high and keep competition out, but that's different due to how hard much more expensive it is to become a car dealership.

<comment><USER7> That's good because collision is generally bad for car consumers.

<comment><USER8> You probably meant "collusion" but what you wrote is, in fact, quite true as well.

<comment><USER9> Seems they were poking fun at the parent's typo which also states "collision".

> A high barrier to entry business would more easily face allegations of anti- > trust and collision, eg all of the car dealerships

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It doesn't matter if you're dealing with a store run by Apple or Google (or presumably anyone else): the stories are all the same.

Presumably because to make the economics work, review and approval are done by poorly trained contractors who don't have time to do a proper job and need to meet quotas. And with anything security related, there's an inherent bias toward not giving information on the _exact_ violations because this can be used to get around the "spirit" of the law while sticking to its "letter" (very true for spam, questionable for app stores).

Serious question: is there any better model though? In the non-virtual world, similar standards for the public good are achieved through things like FDA regulations, health inspections, building codes and permits, etc.

Since it doesn't seem like there's any kind of elegant free-market or crowd- sourced solution here, what should the standards be for regulating apps and extensions? What kind of "due process" ought there be, or appeal, or whatever? Is there going to come a point when app stores get regulated by a democratically legislated government agency?

<comment><USER11> Alternative! Software distributions - community maintained packages.

As Arch Linux user if I found a software I like and want to help with distribution I can create package and push it to AUR [1]. This works as recipe - list of make and run dependencies, configuration, installation. Package is not safe and should be reviewed on installation.

Popular package may be pulled to official repository [2], distributed in binary form. "community" repository maintained by Trusted Users [3], "core" and "extra" by Arch Linux Developers [4]. It is evergreen - rolling release. Some distributions provide Stable releases which should be even safer.

Distributions may remove package, block version, patch to its standards. I think if opt-out addons were distributed by Debian they would be patched to opt-in.

In other words - many 3rd party distributions, by users to users, pulled - <USER2> pushed, not required to accept all packages.

[1] [https://aur.archlinux.org/](https://aur.archlinux.org/)

[2] [https://www.archlinux.org/packages/](https://www.archlinux.org/packages/)

[3] [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Trusted_Users](https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Trusted_Users)

[4] [https://www.archlinux.org/people/developers/](https://www.archlinux.org/people/developers/)

<comment><USER12> "many 3rd party distributions, by users to users" is not how Arch works. Arch has a single official repository, AUR, that everybody uses. Becoming a Trusted User requires you to run for office under a standard voting procedure with bylaws.

<comment><USER11> I've described that in Arch part. Arch has _several_ official repositories [0] and AUR _is not_ one of them. I've also mentioned Debian.

"many 3rd party distributions" is many distributions - Debian, Arch, Gentoo, Fedora, Mint, etc. It is often cited as inefficient but it provides choice. And if there was only one distribution it would create too much pressure on maintainer not to sell its users.

"by users to users" is general description of distribution. I would be surprised if distribution maintainers does not use distribution they work on.

I've created my own addon and shared it [0] - just a few lines. From user to users - just because someone may find it useful.

I understand it is hard to maintain community and trust. Anyone can create distribution but real working distribution is a lot of work. But it should start somewhere. I review addons I install, I can share it.

[0] [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Official_repositories](https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Official_repositories)

[1] [https://github.com/sergeykish/hide- scrollbars](https://github.com/sergeykish/hide-scrollbars)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > Complaining on the internet should not be a support channel. Developers > should not have to rely on the internet attention lottery.

None of the huge tech companies (Google/Apple/MS/Amazon/etc) have an easy (or in many cases _any_ ) way to contact human service representatives. This is intentional.

People have been complaining about this for more than a decade. Every week there are multiple writeups on the front page of HN about apps and extensions being killed off.

These corporations will never fix this. They have no incentive to do so. They don't care about individual users or small developers, and don't want to get involved in their "petty" issues.

Why? Because these have no impact on how much money they make.

The only way to fix this is through government regulation, but good luck with that.

<comment><USER14> I fully agree with that. But I think there is another angle to this that is often ignored/overlooked.

With their (intentional) behavior you described, these companies often violate even basic legal principles and sometimes even specific laws (depending on country/jurisdiction). Moreover, these same companies (again, intentionally) also use their financial/legal weight to pretty much stifle/kill any individual attempts to bring them to task for those violations. In fact, that itself is illegal (antitrust) behavior in many places.

This isn't just about governments failing to regulate these companies, but probably even more so about their failure to even enforce existing rules and protect citizens against such abuses.

It's a pretty good demonstration of how bad the state of class (in)justice really is, including all the corrupt governments that keep it a reality.

<comment><USER15> Could you explain, maybe with a few examples, how they are doing illegal things with this behavior?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Some previous discussions from a quick search to give some context to the frustration (sorry for the length, it's intended to be illustrative, I cut it at 10):

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23219427](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23219427)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23229073](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23229073)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20186915](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20186915)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21232438](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21232438)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23285466](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23285466)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12442048](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12442048)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21990566](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21990566)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23168874](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23168874)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21233041](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21233041)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20587440](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20587440)

I'm not suggesting Google doesn't care, but...

<comment><USER17> Google doesn't care.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> This happened to an extension of mine as well, with 10k users. After repeatedly emailing them and getting back different snippets of the policy each time, I think there's some kind of AI or a very process-driven team that doesn't do any critical thinking handling each request.

I've ignored them now and the extension is still up so let's see what happens.

It's pretty clear that the walled garden approach will eventually stifle innovation, and building businesses or even apps for fun inside the frameworks of giant corporations is just not a good long term strategy.

<comment><USER19> This is why I like the hybrid approach that Android has for apps, at least as of 2020.

That it has its walled garden, but it is possible to install from arbitrary sources (with sufficient warnings to users of those dangers). In iOS, you can't sideload at all.

<comment><USER20> The flow for installing apps outside of Google's approved method on Android breaks 3rd party app stores like F-Droid, such that automatic updates of apps installed via F-Droid, or updating several foreign apps at the same time, cannot work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Tangential but for those who are developing Chrome extensions, I've made a post about what to expect when submitting a update and how to avoid the manual review from CWS.

It can be found at [https://getsnapfont.com/posts/avoiding-lengthy-review- times-...](https://getsnapfont.com/posts/avoiding-lengthy-review-times-for- chrome-webstore-submissions)

</comment><comment><USER21> Google/Apple/MS app stores are pretty much a bastardization of software repositories found in the Linux world for years beforehand[1]. I doubt we'll see requirements to allow importing 3rd party repositories/signing keys at this point without some legislation.

Yes, I get some users don't always know what they're doing and it might be a big security risk, but just put up a big enough warning. People shouldn't be locked in to what software they're allowed to run on their own devices.

[1]: [https://battlepenguin.com/tech/android- fragmentation/#packag...](https://battlepenguin.com/tech/android- fragmentation/#package-management)

<comment><USER22> You already can run your own Chrome Extensions repo: [https://developer.chrome.com/apps/external_extensions](https://developer.chrome.com/apps/external_extensions)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> This is the behavior of a monopolist, and Google needs to be broken up. Google and the various sub-entities get away with no customer support or completely inadequate support and they are a vital part of the Internet.

If there were competition, then there's no way with Google not being able to answer urgent customer support tickets. Because they are a monopoly, they can get away with saving money on customer support. All their subentities like Chrome, Gmail, etc are funded by their search and ads monopoly.

The only way this gets better is by breaking up Google, and forcing them to actually compete. If Chrome had to earn money the same way all the other companies did without having the hundreds of billions that Google makes, it would be a totally different product. They would need to earn their money the same way Firefox does, and would need to earn a portion of their money from things like extensions, and then they would need to compete with better customer support. But because they are a monopoly, they don't have to. It's basically a form of raising prices with no recourse, except what they do is deny services to competitors by having no support.

The only solution is to break Google apart, and force the parts to earn money the way all their competitors have to.

<comment><USER24> So, I thought chrome was a loss making project, and the only reason it exists is because Google fund it for the data it generated and as part of their wider "use our stuff in exchange for your data" business model.

So if you break up Google, chrome would have to cut its budget or stop existing. And either way, chrome extension Devs wouldn't be better supported than they are now would they?

This is always my question with "Break up X": then what?

<comment><USER25> A hypothetical Chrome Inc. (or Chrome Foundation) could make its money off of selling rights to the search bar (hypothetically to Google anyway), and, I suppose, donations. Enterprise support would be another thing they'd have to provide (and could sell), especially if they got the Chrome OS project.

It'd be a speed bump, and they wouldn't have the full resources of Google, but I think it could make it. (But I don't know if it should, the open-source Chromium base isn't committed to only by Google.)

<comment><USER26> And bear in mind: The amount they make this way could adjust, Google would have to be prepared to outbid Bing for default search placement. Bearing in mind, that whoever is the default search engine on Chrome controls the Internet, there's a _lot_ of money at stake.

<comment><USER24> That's fine, but to out bid bing, you only have to outbid bing. Microsoft have been forced to divest under this new antitrust regime. A maybe yahoo or askjeeves will come to the rescue?

And remember, to improve chrome extension support, you need chrome to get more money from the new sponsor than they got from the Google, one of the richest companies on earth...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> From the article:

> It's very possible for a 3rd party extension store to do a better job than > Google at blocking malicious extensions.

I don't know that that is the case. Google clearly does a _terrible_ job on this, but they are at least theoretically financially motivated to do the job correctly. It's hard for me to imagine a 3rd party extension store being financially viable with correctly aligned financial motivations.

</comment><comment><USER11> There are about 200000 chrome extensions, if 200 defected that is not a lot. It should be some minor things. Interestingly it is hard to make educated choice - does it contain opt-out spyware? what is the license? how much JS code it contains and why? is code readable or minified?

Compare with

[https://www.openhub.net/p/chrome](https://www.openhub.net/p/chrome)

[https://www.ruby-toolbox.com/categories](https://www.ruby- toolbox.com/categories)

[https://rubygems.org/gems/rails](https://rubygems.org/gems/rails)

[https://www.npmjs.com/package/jquery](https://www.npmjs.com/package/jquery)

</comment><comment><USER24> Between this and Apple (profit/brand motive) and YouTube (incompetence/copyright bs), you have to be really careful building anything that relies on a platform you don't control. This is why RSS and similar tech is so important...

</comment><comment> awinter-py UGC web (including app stores) has to externalize dispute resolution or they lose all credibility with developers

'separation of powers' is a useful concept in the law, it's coming to the private sector (except with shorter arbitration timelines)

</comment><comment><USER28> Ironically, after complaining that Chrome Web Store killed their extension without saying why, the author doesn't answer why either beyond "it was a mistake." Pray tell: mistakenly hitting "deny," mistakenly interpreting rules in an unfavorable way, someone marked the submission as "in their queue by accident and then forgot about it? I get that it was a mistake but it makes a difference whether it was a mistake of clumsiness, carelessness, or malice covered with "it was a mistake!" when found out.

<comment><AUTHOR> You can easily see for yourself on the twitter thread that is linked in the article. There's also this tweet for context: [https://twitter.com/DotProto/status/1273824813270700038?s=20](https://twitter.com/DotProto/status/1273824813270700038?s=20)

They thought we weren't using the TTS permission, but we are.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Notice how we don't have this issue with, say, Debian or Arch package repos. Is it because third party source allowed in package managers?

</comment><comment><USER30> This happened to us by Google just now too. They deleted our app for a violation in version one of the app when we are on version 4 (over a year later) after 100 emails with basic replies, and inability to escalate we are at a loss. This is for Google Play store. Serves us right to try and build a business on Google/Android

</comment><comment><USER31> Why insisting on staying with Chrome?</comment>