Amazon Is Complicit in Online Sales of Counterfeit Goods: Report - <AUTHOR> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/06/15/amazon-ceo-bezos-knowingly-complicit-online-sales-counterfeit-goods-according-report/ <comment><USER2> If Amazon ever faces a reckoning or crisis of some kind, it will because their marketplace product is totally out of control. Sellers have completely gamed search, ratings, reviews, everything and Amazon, by design, makes it really hard to tell if you're buying something "shipped and sold by Amazon" vs some other shady seller whose products are only being fulfilled by Amazon.

I would say I'm more dissatisfied with things I buy from Amazon than almost any other merchant, and now I only buy things on Amazon if it's 1) either sold directly by Amazon (which is increasingly hard to find) or 2) really cheap and where questionable quality is not a concern.

Egregious example: Type in "wireless headphones" and the top results look like what you'd find on a corner in Chinatown than a legitimate electronics store.

<comment><USER3> Even items "shipped and sold by amazon" can often be counterfeit. Below is one example, but I've also read on HN of someone receiving a dangerous fake Apple adapter that was "sold and shipped by Amazon", and I have personally bought shampoo from Amazon that I'm pretty certain was counterfeit.

[http://www.thefashionlaw.com/home/amazon-is-tricking- consume...](http://www.thefashionlaw.com/home/amazon-is-tricking-consumers- with-its-ships-from-and-sold-by-amazon-label-per-new-suit)

<comment><USER4> I've wondered if Amazon co-locates its own stock with that of Fulfillment By Amazon stock which would mean you could end up with anything as long as it looks similar and has the same SKU.

<comment><USER5> This is exactly what happens. Items from different sellers are mixed together and then randomly dispatched by Amazon under their own name.

<comment><USER6> This is the reason why I quit buying anything from Amazon anymore if I can help it. They're not interested in fixing it.

What I can't understand is this: even if they comingle, they must know which seller owns which item. If they didn't, how would they pay the right seller once a particular item is sold? And yet, there seems to be no accountability at all.

<comment><USER7> They don't need to know which product belongs to which seller, they only need to know how many.

If someone clicks your listing and buys a product, they ship it from the commingled inventory and then pay you your share of the sale and deduct one from your inventory tally.

Then, if the item they sent ends up being counterfeit, whether from your own stock, from another seller, or even from Amazon's own stock, they will take it out on your seller account for selling counterfeits.

<comment><USER6> So then how do they decide which of the comingled sellers got the sale? Round Robin? Random?

<comment><USER8> The customer still ordered via the listing of a specific vendor, even if Amazon shipped from co-mingled stock.

<comment><USER6> Not necessarily, some items have only one listing for all sellers and you click the buy button that has the prime logo. Who are you buying from in this case as far as Amazon is concerned for their inventory accounting?

<comment><USER9> It's always been clear to me which specific vendor I'm buying from, it lists it right under the product. I can click on new or used in order to see other vendors and select one of them if I prefer. Based on my experience, the vendor defaults to Amazon if they have the product themselves, otherwise it is likely based on whoever they make the most money on. That is not a straightforward computation - they might make more profit on a more expensive listing, but then fewer people would buy it. I'm sure they use some proprietary ML algorithm to decide which vendor to show, but its always been very clear to me which vendor I'm purchasing from, both on the item page and also in the cart.

<comment><USER3> Yes, but that's not I was talking about in my original post, at least. I was discussing the fact that even if you explicitly choose "Amazon.com" from that list of vendors, Amazon itself is shipping goods from other vendors and making it impossible for you to know that, which can lead to receiving counterfeit goods. There is zero indication, anywhere, that it's being shipped from anyone else's stock in these cases.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I really, really want to hear the other side to this.

That there is a serious counterfeiting problem is obvious to anyone who buys certain categories of products on Amazon. It is certainly obvious to Amazon itself. BUT Amazon is also a very customer focused company. So how has this not been solved?

Critics will speculate that Amazon makes more money with this status quo, thus has little incentive to fix things. But that calculus doesn't make any sense ---maybe in a very narrow balance sheet view, but Amazon has always taken a long view on these things, and there's no way the long term damage to their brand is worth whatever they make from sketchy third-party sellers. It doesn't add up. There must be something else factored in that I'm missing.

<comment><USER11> I'm skeptical of your claim that Amazon is a customer-focused company.

They're definitely a _growth_ -focused company. At times in their history, and for certain aspects of the business, that has made them customer-focused.

In many other regards (like making sure the customer gets the product they want) they're clearly not at all customer-focused.

They won't address this until it begins to visibly impact their marketplace dominance.

<comment><USER10> Amazon's customer service is legendary. It's why this whole thing is such a mystery. If Comcast were doing something so bad for customers, nobody would be surprised.

<comment><USER12> Legendary? Maybe in the past, but I've not seen anything special in the past few years. I've received counterfeits they won't replace, only refund. USPS shipping ruins the 2 day guarantee, and ever fewer products seem to be guaranteed vs expected.

The worst was ordering a Netflix gift card for my mother, email never arrived with the code, and support said they couldn't do anything. No resend worked, they refused to refund because the system said "sent", and couldn't give the code directly because they have no access. Netflix support tried surprisingly hard to help track down the card from their own system, but Amazon had blocks of codes and they couldn't identify.

Escalated the issue twice to no avail, tried emailing the Bezos account and never heard a peep. My only option left is a chargeback, but then they are likely to just close my account permanently as a final f-you.

Results of course may vary, but their service is garbage imo.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I bought a baby product from amazon. It gave off an immense smell that made me noxious (I don't want to know what my baby was thinking). I threw it away and contacted the company. The company pointed out that the product I had is slightly different from their product and is a counterfeit. It is a huge problem. I don't buy baby products from amazon anymore. Once, amazon shipped me an opened can of any formula

</comment><comment><USER14> I've been an Amazon customer since 1998, and this problem has shifted my buying away from Amazon, for categories where counterfeiting seems likely.

If they offered an option to simply never see any items with that (idiotic) co-mingled counterfeit-prone inventory management scheme, I'd happily pay a bit more to get things which I am confident went directly from the real manufacture, to Amazon, to me. Which of course is exactly what I do... by not shopping for such items at Amazon.

Truly the whole thing makes me wonder what kind of thinking could be going on. They have an amazing juggernaut of success going, all they have to do is not screw it up by doing anything especially stupid. Like this.

<comment><USER12> I used to do virtually all my buying on Amazon, their supply chain mess has moved me to about half. I honestly never thought I'd step foot in a Best Buy or Frys again, but for branded merchandise it's far safer to do so.

<comment><USER15> Have done the same. Price match and same day in-store pickup is faster than Amazon at the same price.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Buries the lede. If you click through to the press release [https://thecounterfeitreport.com/press_release_details.php?d...](https://thecounterfeitreport.com/press_release_details.php?date=2018-06-05&id=762)

> In repeated emails from Amazon opening with "Jeff Bezos received your email > and I am responding on his behalf," The Counterfeit Report, a consumer > advocate and industry watchdog, has been informed that inarguable > counterfeit items will not be removed from many of Amazon's various 13 > global websites. Amazon uses a crafty excuse: "Trademarks must be validly > registered for European countries to take action on European nations" or > "Your trademark must be in registered status in [each country the item is > sold in]."

So they will actually let known counterfeits be sold freely in countries where the brand isn't trademarked.

Further, and worse IMHO, is this:

> For example, the counterfeit items below were repeatedly purchased from the > same Amazon sellers and shipped to the USA.

> ... Replica current issue U.S. Secret Service, FBI and police badges are > available on Amazon...

> Notices to Amazon management for of [sic] the alarming practice have been > ignored. The items remain.

</comment><comment><USER17> Over the past 5 years, Amazon had turned into a veritable minefield and I've come to treat it like I do when ordering from direct-from-China sites, like dx and banggood. Every department has their own unique problems riding on top of the problems that exist across all departments.

Since the start of Amazon carrying non-books, I've been perpetually amazed by their absolutely terrible product category breakdowns, lack of category enforcement, and piss poor filtering. They left these problems unchecked so long that they basically screamed "Game me. Nobody's watching."

I'm surprised that no one had been sent something dangerous because of these issues. Maybe a concerted community effort to get rat poison listed as the #1 best seller in all the candy categories would be a good wakeup call. And I wouldn't be surprised at all if it happened.

</comment><comment><USER18> "Amazon's official stance, as outlined by these e-mails, counterfeit products will continue to be listed on Amazon's website in countries where the trademark covering the brand isn't registered."

So they try to do what the law requires them to. The flaw in this approach is that consumers could end up with fake stuff in countries where trademarks aren't registered. Whilst that might be within the law, it's still a shitty experience for consumers.

<comment><USER19> You're assuming customers care about the manufacturer of the product at all.

For batteries, cables, earbuds, paper, dog toys, etc etc etc - the customer does not care who the manufacturer is as long as the item is good quality.

<comment><USER20> And there's the rub: _as long as the item is good quality_.

The main reason for trademarks, economically speaking, is to increase information flow in the marketplace. If some seller claims they have good quality products, you have to just trust them; if they have a trademark and you know that they have a reputation for quality, that trust can be much more accurate.

Where Amazon messes this up is in the intermingling of reviews and inventory for genuine and counterfeit trademarked products, so that customers can't tell whether they're getting Apple-quality or random-Chinese-manufacturer quality chargers, which will either be super-safe or will blow up their devices.

I'm totally okay with buying a battery from a third party, as long as the real manufacturer is clearly indicated and I can check up on the reviews of their build quality.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> It seems like the only metric Amazon is optimizing for is number of items sold, and this seems to be the natural progression of a system where that is the primary goal.

Making a change that decreases the sale of counterfeit products is a change that reduces the sale of products, and in Amazon's case, also leased warehouse space (FBA), and who knows what else - all of which are likely negative metrics.

It's telling, that in the update to the Elevation Lab blog post, it's noted that Amazon doesn't allow 3rd party sellers to sell Amazon Basics products.

[https://www.elevationlab.com/blogs/news/amazon-is- complicit-...](https://www.elevationlab.com/blogs/news/amazon-is-complicit- with-counterfeit-sellers#)

</comment><comment><USER22> I generally support grey markets - including works-well-enough brand-imitating goods, and free trade that undermines unjust cartel/vice laws. Like when it clicks that the domain ipwatchdog.com isn't about the Internet Protocol, I just ready myself for the entrenched-interest crybabying.

But I can't figure out why Amazon is undermining their own brand with this co- mingling scheme! The idea of a trustable supply chain is basically the only thing a retail brand _is_ in this day and age, and Amazon goes and directly undermines their own!

I can only surmise the sales on things where it doesn't matter (say fashion) dwarf the return shrapnel for things that it does. Or perhaps that Amazon's internal market-service based approach doesn't account for the externality of arbitraging away their own brand.

I think the only things keeping Amazon so prominent are the sunk cost effect of Prime, and most people not really understanding how many other easy-to-use web stores there actually are.

</comment><comment><USER23> I was looking on Amazon for a Lightning / 3.5mm splitter so I could simultaneously charge and listen to my iPhone in the car. I found a listing on he first SERP that had 800+ 5-star reviews. No reviews whatsoever in the 1-4 star range. A closer look, all 800 of those reviews were dated within a 3 day period. Obviously fake.

</comment><comment><USER24> Time for me to mention [https://www.fakespot.com/](https://www.fakespot.com/)

</comment><comment><USER25> He also makes it _really_ easy for IP owners to track down counterfeit supply chains. Free discovery to sue pirates.

</comment><comment><USER26> I've made purchases from Amazon 1-2 times per week for the last few years, and have never once received an item that I suspected as counterfeit. I've ordered everything from food to everyday sundries to pretty esoteric lab equipment. I'm always very surprised by these threads on HN where people say that everything is counterfeit.

Cheap, no-name electronics are plentiful, of course. Not everyone can afford to shop at high-end electronics stores that stock only name brands. Sometimes the knockoffs work better than the original. Often times not. Why do people think the sky is falling?

<comment><USER27> There are lots of knock of bose headphone that sell for 300+ real, but 100 fake. The difference of a bose noise canceling, and generic brand is huge difference. The packaging of fakes is getting really good. Im not taking a risk from Amazon, when best buy has a lower chance of counterfiet inventory.

A seller can easily submit many fakes into inventory on amazon. But someone who returns a fake to best buy, but keeping the real device had to risk getting recorded, and can only do so at a slower rate of one item at a time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Amazon's commingling of items from different sellers is simply insane.

</comment><comment><USER29> Manufacturers selling on Amazon should include QR coded key that can be verified as authentic

<comment><USER30> Sounds like the start of a good idea; but a few implementation issues.

1) Steal one QR code, it can then be duplicated.

2) Works well for the situation where Amazon is not simply connecting you directly to the seller, but not when the seller ships directly to you.

(2) could be potentially modified to have brands insist that amazon themselves act as the final shipper (so it would be sent to their warehouses and verified).

(1) is tough one to crack. A transaction ledger would prevent the duplication problem; but may have scaling issues since you'd potentially need to verify the physical objects on receipt. It also doesn't deal with the situation where the product itself can be decomposed for parts and sold separately (like some electronics). Then the QR code can be used to sell an inferior replacement product (an empty box).

Though the QR code + transaction ledger is probably a necessary first step to dealing with this issue.

<comment><USER31> > A transaction ledger...

Did I hear AmazonCoin? /s

<comment><USER30> No, why? Why would Amazon issue a coin system? That is only needed when you need to incentivize people to perform computation on your behalf.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> > makes it really hard to tell if you're buying something "shipped and sold by > Amazon"

Not really, the filters on the left are your friend:

1\. Check ELIGIBLE FOR PRIME 2\. Select Seller=Amazon 3\. If in doubt about the rating, run the URL through Fakespot [1].

This is not foolproof but I have found it effective. If I need a broader search I just start relaxing constraints.

[1] [https://www.fakespot.com/](https://www.fakespot.com/)

</comment><comment><USER33> I bought 2 big cube ice trays, same brand, 1 was really bad quality, I thought it was most likely a cheap knockoff, never even thought it was fake or counterfeit.

Interesting...

</comment><comment><USER34> If those who complain about Amazon would put their money where their mouth is, and stop buying from them, I'm pretty sure Amazon would have already done something about it. Regulation, sadly, is not gonna cut it. The only way for this to change is financial pressure.

</comment><comment><USER35> I've found fakespot.com to be helpful (not foolproof) here. I'm starting to also use ReviewMeta.com.... Has anyone had good results from them?

</comment><comment><USER36> Smells like an opportunity for anybody that can figure out how to define and filter on "genuine".

</comment><comment><USER37> Can anyone verify this?

<comment><USER38> Counterfeit stuff on Amazon has been in the news so many times at this point Bezos being unaware would be like Zuckerburg feigning surprise about privacy concerns on Facebook.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> "Your cost of making genuine products is also my opportunity"

</comment><comment><USER40> You can't believe anything this site says. They are constantly championing IP trolls. They are completely biased.

<comment><USER41> Interesting because the site has multiple references for its statements and you have none.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> I bought some cologne from them and figured it was safe because the seller was posted as Amazon. Got it and the original barcode had been excised with a razor and replaced with a sticker. Scent and bottle were fake. When I wrote a dispassionate and factual review with pics it was removed with no recourse or explanation. Very sketchy.

<comment><USER43> They tend to remove the original barcode if they sell at a discount because otherwise the wholesaler/manufacturer will not sell to them again. This is not illegal. If anything it is an indication the product was real.

<comment><USER44> That is no reason to remove a _UPC_ barcode -- it is common to all instances of that product/size and doesn't reveal anything about its travels through the supply chain.

<comment><USER45> The contents of the box will differ, even if its only the language of the manual or the plug.

I've bought slightly cheaper goods from Romania where just above the barcode it said "Romania and Bulgaria only". I presume the bar code was different than the rest-of-EU one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Well, you know what he will say...the same thing everyone says. The same thing Google says about the rampant copyright theft their platform allows. The same thing Facebook says about bullying, fake news, and the like. The same thing Napster and PirateBay say about their services. The same thing Photoshop would say about people counterfeiting stuff using that. The same thing Bitcoin people (or for that matter, the Federal Reserve system) say about people using their coins for illegal purchases. The same thing the National Park Service says about people falling off of cliffs.

These are all just platforms, and cannot reasonably be held responsible for the action of all their users all of the time. And I think any reasonable- minded person, and most judges, have to see it that way too.

This "complicit" is a misuse of the English language, I think. Bezos is not in cahoots with the counterfeiters here. That is nonsense.

People have been accultured to expect some kind of protection everywhere, all the time. Well, guess what? It's a big world and there are a lot of scammers out there, and nobody can protect you all the time. You have to learn how to protect yourself.

Amazon's review system is one way to protect yourself. I think it isn't bad at all. Read what other people have to say about a product and the vendor before giving up your credit card info.

<comment><USER5> You've got a valid point.

The only thing I cannot give Amazon a benefit of doubt for is when an item is sold under prime shipping but is commingled with the same items from different sellers and making it pure luck whether you receive a genuine item or a counterfeit.

I've received counterfeit flash drives, headphones, batteries and chargers, toiletries and some skincare items - all sold by Amazon and shipped/fulfilled by Amazon.

That's pretty much textbook fraud.

<comment><USER45> After the first, let alone the second counterfeit item, why did you spend another dollar at Amazon?!?!

<comment><USER5> I did not know that they were counterfeit as they arrived. It first came to my notice when using a skincare item. People on the interwebs pointed out about spelling mistakes on the packet which tipped me off.

Every item I have listed above was found to be counterfeit in retrospective. I got a usb voltmeter to test the charger. Had to use f3 to test the flash drives (should've done them in the first place)

The headphones took the longest to figure out. It was a mid range sennheiser headphones which passed the authenticity check. It was a gift so I didn't really test it immediately after purchase. 18 months later I gave them a try and they sounded off. Got them replaced by sennheiser and _boom_ \- massive difference in sound quality. I still wonder if somehow sennheiser was in on the scam because there product verification process told me that the headphones were authentic.

I have drastically reduced my purchasing on Amazon ever since I figured out the scale of counterfeit items being sold. That said there is some stuff which I can only buy on Amazon so can't really cut them off.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> I recently bought Windows 10 Pro license from Amazon for $10 (normal price is $80). It had over 600 ratings, tens of positive reviews along the line "if it doesn't work immediately, phone Microsoft and they will fix it for you".

It worked immediately for me.

Apparently they are Windows licenses recovered from broken laptops and such, but anyway.

</comment><comment><USER48> there's not much to that article, it's all weasel-words, insinuation, and qualifiers. Amazon does have an obvious counterfeit problem, and I'd love to read a real account of just what is being done and why it's so ineffective.

tl;dr : skip it

</comment><comment><USER15> BestBuy will price match Amazon, BH and others, for online and in-store pickup. Can be done in a browser chat session.

</comment><comment><USER49> > _There is something extremely simple Amazon could do about [counterfeit > products]. If you have a registered brand in the Brand Registry and don't > sell the product wholesale – there could be one box to check for that. And > anyone else would have to get approval or high vetting to sell the product, > especially if they are sending large quantities to FBA. I imagine there are > some algorithmic solutions that could catch most of it too… Why Amazon > doesn't do this is mind-blowing_

Because producers would immediately check any box that needs to be checked in order to become the single supplier of their brand on Amazon. It's immensely valuable to control all sales on the largest online store in the world, while at the same time maintaining a discriminatory pricing structure on various markets without being undercut online by your own distributors.

Amazon would effectively let brand owners gouge their customers and reduce Amazon overall competitivity and appeal.</comment>


MobileRules - it could be you - <AUTHOR> http://www.mobilerules.org/ Competition for mobile applications. I haven't really looked at the competition, just thought the "it could be you" picture was amusing. Is that really what is driving us? ;-) <comment><AUTHOR> Hm, where is the comment? So here it is again: I just thought the "it could be you" picture was amusing. It seems so stereotypical...</comment>


Why Google New Web Startups, You Ask? - <AUTHOR>

Let the contest to make a title with the most popular keywords begin! <comment><USER2> Ask YC: top network/web programming job vs. new social app website startup idea? (google vs. facebook)

</comment><comment><USER3> Ask YC: Why bother? All questions are already answered.

</comment><comment><USER4> Ask YC: Why Microsoft Best Hacker Use Open Source Software?</comment>


Google moves to replace Flash with HTML5 - <AUTHOR> https://bitmovin.com/google-replace-flash-with-html5/ <comment><USER2> > _DRM is a hugely important part of the online video workflow and HTML5 > offers a very useful tool with Encrypted Media Extensions._

DRM has never been important for online video workflow and it's only useful in the way a walled garden is useful... it will require that each pair of browser-website (with EME) negotiate before allowing it, basically making it impossible for smaller browsers to become useful at all

<comment><USER3> >DRM has never been important for online video workflow

Yes it has. Always.

<comment><USER4> No it hasn't. It's just been a demand from media execs that distribution networks are forced to implement.

Netflix is competing with free and winning -- they've created something that's actually more convenient than piracy. I can already download everything on Netflix from my friendly local piracy site, but I don't because the eight bucks a month is worth less than the time I would waste pirating it.

Hell, Netflix could put a download button next to all their content and I bet it wouldn't affect piracy. The value isn't in the content but the distribution network that's so good even pirates can't compete with it.

<comment><USER5> Meh. Netflix would not affect piracy because their offer is very small. Netflix is good if you're an American and not very into movies. As soon as you are looking for something outside the "very mainstream" you're out of luck.

Your "I can already download everything on Netflix from my friendly local piracy site" works, but the other way around doesn't. I've been a Netflix user for years, but I'm on the verge of unsubscribing, because I realized that since January I've only watched House of Cards.

<comment><USER6> > Netflix would not affect piracy because their offer is very small.

I question this assertion as Netflix used to use torrent trends as a decision input for deciding what content to purchase: [https://torrentfreak.com/netflix-uses-pirate-sites-to- determ...](https://torrentfreak.com/netflix-uses-pirate-sites-to-determine- what-shows-to-buy-130914/)

I can also offer anecdotal evidence that the piracy rates of my college social network dramatically decreased as the affordability and content quality of Netflix increased.

Netflix is being squeezed by media publishers which is why they started publishing their own content. I still hope that streaming services like Netflix will win and reshape the market...but it is a difficult fight.

On the note of you only having watched "House of Cards", there are a bunch of Netflix shows I could recommend for you if you're interested. "Peaky Blinders" comes to mind immediately since we are due for another season at the end of this month.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> What bugs me is that Google gave itself a pass by white-listing YouTube - because it turns out some people still need Flash on YouTube. Google should dog-food their own policies.

<comment><USER7> Are there parts of YouTube that require Flash in Chrome other than legacy embeds on non-YouTube sites that enable the embedding page to script the Flash embed via a JS API?

<comment><USER3> >other than legacy embeds on non-YouTube sites that enable the embedding page to script the Flash embed via a JS API

That's probably it. Then again, it's not just Google that has to deal with legacy applications. So yeah, if you're going to shove this policy in the name of open standards, dog-food it and deal with the same pain countless of companies will have to.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Google Finance still uses Flash:

[https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AGOOG](https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AGOOG)

I really wish they didn't leave it to rot.

<comment><USER9> So does Google Music, you need Chrome if you want to use it without Flash and even then it doesn't work immediately.

[http://googlesystem.blogspot.nl/2016/04/google-play-music- st...](http://googlesystem.blogspot.nl/2016/04/google-play-music-still- requires-flash.html?m=1)

<comment><USER10> Flash is only required when subscribed to Google Play Music All Access / Youtube Red, otherwise a free account can readily enable HTML5 audio in the options, which works in Chrome/Safari/Firefox (just tested again to be sure) and probably Edge also.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> well, good riddance to flash, but Encrypted Media Extensions are definitly not an advantage, see for example [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/save- firefox](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/save-firefox)

<comment><USER12> EME is a huge advantage from a security perspective because it avoids pulling in a massive platform (Flash, Silverlight) just to play video. We can debate other aspects but from a security perspective moving to a small, tightly- scoped module is a big win and that's important when the cost of vulnerabilities is in the billions per year.

It's also somewhat good for the web since both of those platforms are competitors and companies often reuse things they've already invested in.

It is unequivocally bad that it poses a risk to Mozilla but the real problem isn't EME but rather the fact that all of the DRM opposition since the 90s has failed to move public opinion much. As long as customers happily pay for DRMed content and three of the major browsers are made by DRM vendors, the most likely alternative to Flash is a proprietary interface. The fact that EME is standardized at least gives the EFF better grounds for demanding consistent treatment.

<comment><USER13> > EME is a huge advantage from a security perspective because it avoids > pulling in a massive platform (Flash, Silverlight) just to play video.

You don't need EME "just to play video". HTML5-video without EME can do that just fine.

It is only when you conflate video playback with DRM then that argument somewhat works.

<comment><USER14> But the vast majority of video watched today (think Netflix) would not be on the web if it were not DRMed.

Philosophical arguments about what "video" "needs" are all very well, but the side that actually provides users with the content they want where they want it will be the side that wins, and very quickly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is a real blow to sites that rely on Flash's RTMP for low-latency live streaming. There's no real HTML5 equivalent right now. HLS and MPEG-DASH have a delay of around 30 seconds, often more.

<comment><AUTHOR> We did tests here and got down to 8 seconds end to end delay, including transcoding. but also HTTP2.0 push will be super interesting here.

<comment><USER16> Wow, impressive! I'm waiting for the day where my internet stream is 'Live' like my television is 'live.'

<comment><USER17> I did a cursory search out of curiosity: TV has a 7 second delay they add themselves to filter content. The broadcast itself is pretty much instant. It's impressive.

<comment><USER18> I work for a church that does live broadcasts. We see about a 3-5 second delay on OTA and about a 4-6 second delay on cable. We are tied to the tv station by a fiber line and they are only a block or so away.

<comment><USER17> interesting!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I don't care so much about video, but audio. I can't find a site that streams audio with out flash. This is how this change will affect me.

<comment><USER20> Including Google's own Google Music, I use Firefox in my daily browsing without Flash installed, when I want to listen to my music i've to start Google Chrome which has Flash by default. The experimental HTML5-audio toggle is always disabled for me.

<comment><USER21> Play Music always uses HTML5 now, which is why the toggle is not available (but it's indicated badly). You can disable the built-in Flash on chrome://plugins and everything will still work.

<comment><USER22> Only in Chrome, it still requires Flash in Firefox for some reason. They're using some non-standard way of doing HTML5 Audio as far as I remember, which only works in Chrome.

Bug report is here - [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=911837](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=911837) \- It's been a while since I looked into it and looks like the details have changed recently. At least a quick attempt now tells me "Please refresh this page in your browser to get back to listening to your music. If issues persist, make sure you have Flash enabled and working."

<comment><USER23> Is there a standard way of doing HTML5 audio?

By which I mean, a standard that works cross-browser? ;)

<comment><USER24> Google Play Music uses MSE (Media Source Extensions) to stream MP3. Firefox doesn't support MP3 in MSE streams. Google Play Music could use AAC or Opus in MSE, like YouTube does, but they prefer MP3 because some Android devices have MP3 hardware decoders that (may!) use less battery power than software decoders.

YouTube encodes all their content with in multiple formats: AAC and Opus, H.264 and VP9. I don't know why Google Play Music can't encode their music streams in both MP3 and Opus. They would save on bandwidth by using Opus.

Here is the Firefox bug to add support for MP3 in MSE: [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1169485](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1169485)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This article has the vibe of drawing attention to something else other than the subject of the piece. Is that unfair to say? Not for me to judge I suppose, but the final paragraph says it all.

Anyway, a couple of things from the article...

> _" Netflix have already switched to HTML5...due to the benefits of HTML5 > based streaming"_

> _"...HTML5 outperforms plugin based playback in almost every department"_

> " _...delivering high bandwidth products such as 360° video and Virtual > Reality in a more efficient manor._ "

Such generic statements! Netflix HTML5 playback in both Chrome and Firefox is limited to 720p. That's not a benefit and is why I must use silverlight in IE on Windows 7 to watch 1080p Netflix. They really should cover things like this to better reflect how things actually are.

The claims about HTML5 performance over plugins should only come from people who have done side by side comparisons. So many bloggers telling it according to something they read somewhere.

Finally, " _360° video in a more efficient manor_ ". I like efficient manors, even bad manors, but again this claim should be backed up with evidence. If you look at VR, if you look at 360 video, the evidence for better performance in HTML5 for these technologies is simply not there. Even with still image panoramas, anyone who has made these in something like KrPano will know that Flash panoramas generally outperform HTML5 panoramas. Smoother motion, better memory management, better cross-browser performance. We may wish it weren't so, but we should get facts straight regardless of whether it leaves HTML (which we love) a little bruised in the comparison.

</comment><comment><USER26> Among other things, it means the final nail in the coffin of hardware accelerated web video on Linux, after Chrome disabled then removed it's working browser implementation. [https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=137247](https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=137247)

</comment><comment><USER27> While the focus is rightly on video, there are a huge number of games written in flash. In the short term this s probably a hug boost for unity... But as flash dies there will be a lot of games that die with it.

<comment><USER23> Unity is itself a proprietary, single-vendor, closed-source plugin.

Though I don't disagree at all, transitioning from one proprietary, single- vendor, closed-source plugin to another isn't actually going to solve the problems that killing Flash is supposed to solve (apart from the one where Flash is also a gigantic legacy-code monument to all our sins, of course ;) ).

<comment><USER28> Unity you output WebGl-based games, see [http://docs.unity3d.com/Manual/webgl- building.html](http://docs.unity3d.com/Manual/webgl-building.html)

From what I remember it's not as performant or reliable as the plugin, so there's some work to be done on unity's end. Beyond that, if browser makers want to replace native code plugins they have to give a better alternative. WebAssembly might help, but since it's essentially running in the same vm as JS I'm not sure it'll be faster other than the parsing overhead.

<comment><USER23> > From what I remember it's not as performant or reliable as the plugin...

... two things that absolutely kill videogames, so it's more accurate to say "Unity you _will_ output WebGl-based games" (at some indeterminate point in the future).

Agreed that it's a step in the right direction over alternatives though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> <rant>

Getting really frustrated with all the things chrome is starting to change.

We are starting to become a bunch of sheep, if google wants something, they announce it, and implement it, we developers, users have to fall in line and start doing everything they want.

What the hell is going on, why are we not pissed off about this. Look I hate Flash as much as the other guy, but blocking an extention just because a company doesn't like it. How long before we see adblockers, anti piracy trackers and basically anything that a company like google will see as a threat get blocked.

Don't give me that "Oh flash has security holes so we are blocking it." Yeh when our governments use this same excuse we are all up in arms, but when a company does this many are okay with it.

The sad sad truth is majority of users are going to fall in line whenever a company decides what's best for them.

</rant>

And to all the fan-boys/girls down-voting me. Have the decency to leave a comment as to why you are downvoting.

<comment><USER30> I'll see your rant and raise you an exasperated sigh.

> We are starting to become a bunch of sheep

You might be, but not all of us are.

> why are we not pissed off about this

About them blocking (but still bundling) flash in 2016? I'd honestly be more questioning why they ever bundled it in the first place. I use Safari and have not installed Flash in.. years.

But if you mean pissed off about Google using it's position of power to arbitrarily decide what technology "wins" and "loses" \- people _are_ pissed off. Unfortunately, there is seemingly an entire _generation_ of developers who are somehow perpetually convinced Google is the second coming of jesus, and that anything they do must be a good thing.

I've seen developers who will argue that they use emacs/vim over a full IDE "because now I'm not reliant, I can work on a server if i need to" and then use Google for fucking everything. So the lesson is, you can't become dependent on something you actually have control over, like a laptop, but it's fine to become dependent on a mega-corporation that has a history of just abandoning shit because nothing ever lives up to the ridiculous amounts of profits made by being a creepy personal data collecting tracker of fucking everything.

Regardless of your thoughts about flash, this is the perfect opportunity to explore the world outside google. Other browsers exist. Other search engines exist. Other ad networks (and less fucking creepy ones) exist. Go forth. Be adventurous. Be free. Seriously.

Anyone who thinks Google's level of control on the web (search engine, browser, data centres, home internet connections, mobile phones) isn't a massive risk is kidding themselves.

Edit: for clarity, I'm not arguing that the situation isn't fucked, just saying, don't lie down and accept it. Also, have an up vote, because, you know, the voting system here is fucked.

<comment><USER31> > But if you mean pissed off about Google using it's position of power to > arbitrarily decide what technology "wins" and "loses" \- people are pissed > off.

I think categorizing it as winners and losers is wrong. As much ribbing as google gets, I think very often, they are using their position of power to make the internet more secure and functional. They won't get it right every time, but I'm happy to see them try.

<comment><USER30> Every tyrant claims to be doing things "for the greater good".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> But I recently realized flash is now required for google music?

[http://i.imgur.com/9Cxirzy.png](http://i.imgur.com/9Cxirzy.png)

It worked fine before they re-wrote it. Now I have to turn on the flash plugin and the whole thing runs slow and feels clunky. Why google?

</comment><comment><USER33> Funny, HTML5 streaming in Chrome often breaks for me and I have to restart to fix this.

Unfortunately, I can't reproduce this reliably, otherwise I'd file a bug.

</comment><comment><USER34> I've heard that many CDNs are still lagging to adopt DASH, and it causes a major problem for any service which wants to implement HTML5 video (DASH + Media Source Extensions). How does it work for Youtube, do they simply run their own CDN?

 _> DRM is a hugely important part of the online video workflow_

I agree to other commenters here who pointed the nonsense of this. DRM is not an important part of the workflow. It's a tool of corrupted groups for standards poisoning, market control and "creative" undemocratic lawmaking.

<comment><USER35> Maybe I'm naïve or not seeing something here but DASH looks like something you can do by storing a couple of files somewhere and setting a MIME type [0]?

What's special about DASH that CDNs need to specially support it? Or are you talking about services that handle transcoding video and such as well?

[0]: [https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/HTML/DASH_Adapt...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/HTML/DASH_Adaptive_Streaming_for_HTML_5_Video)

<comment><USER34> From what I understood, CDN is needed to lift the heavy load from the source servers. Without them you'd be hammered by heavy traffic, and not only that, the route to the end user will be most likely longer.

DASH is adaptive streaming, and as such, when you select some stream from the client, CDN should support that in their infrastructure (including codecs and etc.). I don't know the details exactly, but it's far from trivial. May be someone can explain what the difficulty is in detail.

Currently CDNs support HLS and Adobe's adaptive streaming, both of which aren't open standards and aren't part of HTML5 video.

See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_bitrate_streaming#Ado...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_bitrate_streaming#Adobe_HTTP_Dynamic_Streaming)

Without DASH support in CDN, you can't scale your service, and to get rid of Flash and Adobe's adaptive streaming you need DASH + MSE. That's how I understood it at least.

<comment><USER36> > DASH is adaptive streaming, and as such, when you select some stream from > the client, CDN should support that in their infrastructure

Adaptive streaming is essentially a client side technology, all the CDN needs to do is ensure that it serves up files with the right mime type (not actually a hard requirement, but many players choke if you don't).

Which segment to play next is decided by the player based on current playback conditions and a manifest of available segments and bitrates; it then requests the relevant segment from the CDN, which delivers it as it would a normal file. (A segment is just a very short video file).

The CDN is not expected to keep state for each connected client, which it would need to in order to be able to make the relevant decisions on which file to serve.

For live, you also have the complication that you need to keep adding files, and updating the manifest to indicate where these new files are (The payer checks back every couple of seconds to see if the manifest has changed). Any latency at all in this means that a client may get back a stale manifest, and then not know where the next video segment is supposed to come from, causing stalling. (Numerous ways to work around this, but it is the real hurdle to easy adaptive live streaming).

This is all a gross simplification, but at its most base level, that is how it works.

You can (theoretically) do MPEG-DASH from a normal MP4 file, but that does require CDN support (and possibly a single pass to add more info at segment boundaries).

> Currently CDNs support HLS and Adobe's adaptive streaming, both of which > aren't open standards and aren't part of HTML5 video.

HLS is an open standard[0], though not defined by a standards body; more Apple have documented how they do it and others have adopted it as a defacto standard.

And that is the biggest hurdle for DASH adoption - Apple devices.

As a content provider, I have* to support HLS if I want to support adaptive streaming in iOS. Transcoding to another standard (one which is still in its infancy) is just asking for non essential costs and headaches.

*Yes, it is possible to use MPEG-DASH, but not natively supported by Apple, so you are on your own.

Until Apple support MPEG-DASH you still need to provide a HLS stream.

DASH is a sprawling standard, and in theory you can use DASH with existing HLS segments (MPEG-2 .ts files), but no-one supports it (or likely ever will). DASH264 [1] is an attempt to keep it simple, and tie it down to a smaller subset of codecs (x264/5 and the like), and seems to be making headway.

It's early days for MPEG-DASH, and it is gaining traction, helped by the fact it has been learnt a lot of lessons from the likes of Flash and HLS.

0: [https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pantos-http-live- streaming...](https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pantos-http-live-streaming-19) 1: [http://dashif.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/DASH-IF- IOP-v3....](http://dashif.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/DASH-IF-IOP-v3.0.pdf)

<comment><USER37> > in theory you can use DASH with existing HLS segments (MPEG-2 .ts files), > but no-one supports it (or likely ever will)

Twitch.tv does exactly that for their non-Flash streaming (MPEG2 .ts files delivered in pieces).

<comment><USER34> Why doesn't Twitch work in Firefox without Flash?

<comment><USER36> Wouldn't be surprised if Firefox doesn't have all the relevant hardware decode licences (MPEG-2 in this instance).

For a lot of codec related items support is dependent on the underlying OS, and I don't think Windows ships with a general MPEG-2 licence.

<comment><USER34> So again, it's about Apple being jerks and not supporting free codecs. However ffmpeg can decode it, and Firefox relies on it now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Why are the top ten sites exempt?

<comment><USER39> Because the internet is no longer fair :( Things are breaking, I cannot get a mail server set up to send mail to microsoft owned properties, no bounce message just a void, I'm 10/10 on mail-test .com, DMARC, SPF, PTR, no RBL, just m$ don't want me to send email to their users, a private RBL maybe, I cannot know because they don't reply to communications regarding it, nothing to do with this point, except it's asymptotic of a capitalist system with no custodians, nobody is being paid to keep it fair, so it won't stay fair, education of the public is a possible hope, but again, nobody pays for that so...

<comment><USER40> Could this be IPv6-related? I've run my own server for a long time, but when I spun up a new VPS and enabled IPv6, I suddenly couldn't send mail to Comcast customers. It seems that the single default IPv6 address fell into a privately-blacklisted /64\. I was able to work around it by firewalling Comcast's IPv6 MX hosts, but getting my own /64 was the real fix.

On the other hand, I don't know anyone with an @some-microsoft-property email address, so I don't know whether I'll be having trouble sending things there. I can reach Gmail and Yahoo (and after getting my own /64, Comcast) without trouble, though.

EDIT: Hmmm, mail-test.com seems to be a parked domain.

<comment><USER20> A college of my has struggled days with this issue, gmail wouldn't accept any mail send from a IPv6, ended up disabling IPv6 at the end. It seems like google only uses IPv6 for internal mail's, sending a mail to another account sends them using IPv4. Even Facebook, Microsoft etc still use IPv4 for their email's.

<comment><USER41> Google do of course use IPv6 externally, but require rDNS for all inbound IPv6 SMTP sessions. Without that set for your MTA's host they'll reject immediately.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I hope this is the final push Spotify needs to drop Flash from their web player. I'm pretty satisfied with the service except for this.

</comment><comment><USER43> Steam is still using Flash for their stats page.

[http://store.steampowered.com/stats/](http://store.steampowered.com/stats/)

As others have mentioned, Google finance is as well as well as other finance sites. Makes you wonder how someone haven't introduced any HTML5 graphs for stats yet...

</comment><comment><USER44> Finally, amount of exploits in flash is ridiculous and the fact that every couple of months there are new critical ones.

</comment><comment><USER45> I started to watch a lot of youtube videos recently, but it doesnt seem all of them require EME. Am I wrong? Because it seems I can download them fine with a firefox addon, except a very few of them for obvious copyright reasons. I also rarely see song videos that cannot be downloaded from mp3 conversion websites. No idea if those websites are legal or not.

Anyway, on one side you have youtube advertising and adblockers, on the other side they want to force people to stay online and not use the content offline, but they can't have all of them not block ads.

I really wonder about the real cost of hosting youtube videos, and the money they make from ads on youtube. I think there is a huge loss there. Youtube RED might solve this.

</comment><comment><USER46> Sad that shumway isn't mature enough yet to replace Flash completely, else this could have been a seamless change

</comment><comment><USER47> I hate it when I see people talking about Flash as if it's the Web's cancer. Remember Flash pushed the web heavily forward back when we had to install all sorts of desktop applications and codecs just to watch a video or play a simple game. It is an optional plugin that you can always disable. Not having it at all would lead to a poorer UX in my opinion. Can't Chrome just have a toggle Flash on/off in the toolbar and get over it? And let Flash die naturally, when HTML5 catches up?

Edit

Also the propaganda [1] against it makes me laugh. The reason Google wants it out is probably because it can't track the ads inside Flash apps.

[1] [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3160644/Googl...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3160644/Google- Mozilla-pull-plug-Adobe-Flash-Tech-giants-disable-program-browsers-following- critical-security-flaw.html)

"Leaked documents have revealed the program has a serious vulnerability that lets hackers take over anyone's computer."

<comment><USER47> Hell I could rant about this for long. And some people who say Flash is insecure (it probably is) are also the ones who install ad-blockers, antiviruses and all sorts of creepy browser extensions. Well that s not safe either, but Steve Jobs said Flash is bad so it must be. However Steve Jobs knew he cannot monetize the web as well as the AppStore so the "open" web was pulled backwards.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Steve Jobs was right ... 6 years ago.

<comment><USER49> And Stallman was right 12 years ago.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> ok, are Google planning on supporting HLS if they're ditching flash? I see this site is saying that it does (with their player) -- so does it natively or are these guys doing a transmux in Javascript similar to HLS.js and others?

<comment><USER24> Chrome supports HLS natively on Android, but not desktop. Safari and Edge support HLS natively on desktop. Firefox doesn't support HLS natively on Android or desktop.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> You can still use Flash if you click-to-play, or you can white-list an address.

<comment><USER37> Right now yes, this is an upcoming change.

<comment><USER52> > Details:

Later this year we plan to change how Chromium hints to websites about the presence of Flash Player, by changing the default response of Navigator.plugins and Navigator.mimeTypes. If a site offers an HTML5 experience, this change will make that the primary experience. We will continue to ship Flash Player with Chrome, and if a site truly requires Flash, a prompt will appear at the top of the page when the user first visits that site, giving them the option of allowing it to run for that site (see the proposal[2] for the mock-ups). [1]

1\. [https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!searchin/ch...](https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!searchin/chromium- dev/HTML5$20by$20default/chromium-dev/0wWoRRhTA_E/__E3jf40OAAJ)

2\. [https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/106_KLNJfwb9L-1hVVa4i...](https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/106_KLNJfwb9L-1hVVa4i29aw1YXUy9qFX- Ye4kvJj-4/edit#slide=id.p)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Meanwhile, Chrome shows it blocked flash from loading for the bitmovin site.

<comment><AUTHOR> ?

<comment><USER54> I guess folks with click-to-play enabled are seeing something like this: [http://i.imgur.com/WLaqlXo.png](http://i.imgur.com/WLaqlXo.png)

This was on Firefox by the way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> "By the end of this year Chrome will begin ignoring Flash as Google takes another step towards removing the "final Plugin" by replacing Flash with HTML5."

The final plugin? What about widevine?

</comment><comment><USER56> "What does this mean for video"? It means I won't ever have goddamn McAfee Antivirus try to install itself on my computer when I update Flash.

<comment><USER57> this! and i wont have to update flash every few days because of its terrible security.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> I don't care about what it means for video or audio. Unlike games they both are easily adapted and will be adapted on the vast majority of sites.

</comment><comment><USER59> They could fix the Chrome problems on Mac before to do this. I just can't see any youtube video on Chrome, it simple doesn't work :), thx

</comment><comment><USER60> blocks?

</comment><comment><USER61> Absolutely nothing, if your video site is still using flash you are already way behind the times.</comment>


Thomas Edison DC Electrical Cables - <AUTHOR> https://inspectapedia.com/electric/Thomas-Edison-DC-Electrical-Cables.php <comment><USER2> > The solid copper core is much thicker than my thumb. It's Conrad's eye of an > engineer that is turned towards history that enabled him to spot and salvage > this interesting relic that otherwise would certainly have been buried in a > landfill.

I thought contractors just treated any copper they came across as an off-the- books bonus, not something that _actually_ went to a landfill.

</comment><comment><USER3> Related to this I recently found out about the origins of an old electrical distribution board under the stairs in my parents house, this was Southport, NW England. I knew it wasn old and not in use but was never removed.

Apparently the houses near the new tramway, installed about 1900, had an electricity feed direct from the tramway which passed the end of the street. I think it was possibly 600V DC from what I can see about tram power.

I've never researched it but having had a quick search can't find anything specific to the houses being fed. I'll bookmark for later as it's an interesting step in the electrification of our towns. [1] is a link about the trams.

[1] [http://www.petergould.co.uk/local_transport_history/fleetlis...](http://www.petergould.co.uk/local_transport_history/fleetlists/southport1.htm)

</comment><comment><USER4> Part of the reasons while AC can be lethal even at lower voltages (110/220) is that the frequency (50/60 Hz) is near to that of the heartbeat and could create a sort of resonance stopping the heart.

Or at least, many years ago it was compulsory in mines and tunnel digging to have a sort of frequency elevator (at the time it was a generator (alternator) with output still at 220 V but with a very high number of Hertz, if I recall correctly 200-600, driven by an electric motor).

They looked more or less like:

[https://bullseyeindustrialsales.com/giordano- colombo-c3ll-10...](https://bullseyeindustrialsales.com/giordano- colombo-c3ll-10hp-220-460v-primary-245v-rotary-frequency-converter-136916)

From a given point in the tunnel (some 150 or 200 meters before the digging point) all cables/lightings were powered with this high frequency line, the idea being that if the cables were damaged in the works and a worker came accidentally in contact with a naked conductor he/she would get a (painful) shock but not risk life.

<comment><USER5> My understanding is that it's not anything to do with the resonance of a heartbeat or anything like that. The higher frequency ac will experience much more of a skin effect and not penetrate into the body as much or as easily. That means there will be less current that will pass through the organs and heart, but more through your skin and outer muscles. That'll mean it'll hurt more but be more likely to be survivable since you'll have more time to remove the person from the power source.

<comment><USER4> Most probably that is another part of the story, however it seems like there is the need of more current at higher frequencies:

[https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/197300...](https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730001338.pdf)

Look around page 40.

I was reporting what I was told at the time, anyway here is a chapter of an electricity textbook confirming (for what is worth) the added danger of low (50-60 Hz) frequency AC current:

[https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/direct- current/chp...](https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/direct- current/chpt-3/physiological-effects-electricity/)

<comment><USER5> Interesting, I wonder if the higher frequency ends up needing more current because the body can't respond as fast, acting like a filter because the muscles can only move so fast. Biology and electricity mix in interesting ways.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> What is "semi continuous current"? Is that like pulsed DC?

<comment><USER7> My guess would be (mechanically) rectified ac. I'm not very knowledgeable about electrical machines, but I'd imagine that a generator with sinusoidal flux linkage and commutators would produce a waveform that looks like rectified single phase ac.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Edison did not think DC was safer, but he had bo patent on AC, so marketed it as such. A rather famous swindle.

</comment><comment><USER9> inspectopedia always has really interesting stuff for learning about how to inspect homes.

<comment><USER10> It's a treasure from the "old web". Information dense, simple markup, possibly updated by hand...

<comment><USER9> I miss the old web</comment></comment></comment>


Keep – A Meta-CLI tool for shell commands - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@OrkoHunter/keep-a-personal-shell-command-keeper-dac3ab488626#.4a5rm4e56 <comment><USER2> Interesting project, can't wait to toy around with it a bit. It solves a problem that I had never considered a problem, but it kind of is now that I'm thinking about it.</comment>


Code-Free Startup – building real apps without coding - <AUTHOR> https://codefree.co <comment><USER2> Could we create any kind of app?

</comment><comment><USER3> [http://myappcenter.in](http://myappcenter.in), My App Center is a app builder website</comment>


Apple CEO backs China's 'open' Internet vision as censorship reaches new heights - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/12/04/apple-ceo-backs-chinas-vision-of-an-open-internet-as-censorship-reaches-new-heights/ <comment> EZ-E Tim Cook wasn't invited for his beliefs, but to give face to the Chinese government.

Chinese internet is as closed as it gets. Any foreign company eating up the market share of a local company will get blocked eventually or be forced into merging into a local entity.

For now it really is open in one way : Chinese companies are welcome to compete in the whole world, but China won't let you be a competitor of the local companies

Cook is "forced" into this monkey dance because he's deeply entrenched into the Chinese market. He only has little leverage : the jobs he creates in China and the money he makes there.

He has to comply to local laws, even though it interferes with his own point of view because lots of money is at stake. He can't say it in this conference

<comment><USER2> > He has to comply to local laws, even though it interferes with his own point > of view because lots of money is at stake. He can't say it in this > conference

Isn't it the same reason why most of the corrupt people do what they do. There is a lot of money on stake for them and they decide to close their eyes on the corruption around them and actively participate in that vehicle.

Cook is doing exactly the same, he is putting money in front of his moral principles.

If he is so vocal about freedom or whatever, he should take a stand and do something at least in his own company, if his board or investors are pressuring him - he should quit or do something about it, because right now - whatever he says about fighting for freedom is just a complete farce.

<comment><USER3> If you're looking to public for-profit corporations to, of their own volition, take some sort of ethical stand, you're going to be disappointed more often than not.

<comment><USER4> So we shouldn't hold anyone accountable? Just give up?

Yesterday Hackernews talked about how Apple was just focused on making money and they should ignore any moral implications, today we are supposed to feel compassion and understanding for poor Tim Cook? It just sounds like everyone has Apple as their idol and they can't do any wrong.

<comment><USER5>
      So we shouldn't hold anyone accountable? Just give up?

What's needed here is a coalition.

If N companies pulled out of China and it _didn 't_ liberalise, they've incurred a cost for no benefit. If N+1 pulled out and it _did_ trigger China to liberalise, they'd benefit from doing it.

The trick is finding the N+1 companies and convincing them they're enough to be the trigger.

<comment><USER6> > If N companies pulled out of China and it didn't liberalise, they've > incurred a cost for no benefit. If N+1 pulled out and it did trigger China > to liberalise, they'd benefit from doing it.

> The trick is finding the N+1 companies and convincing them they're enough to > be the trigger.

It seems like China has been pretty successful at preventing the actual dependence on foreign companies needed for that strategy to have its indented effect. For instance, if Apple pulls out, Chinese who can afford an iPhone are just going to have to settle for a Huawei.

The only chance I see is a general reduction in trade or foreign-driven manufacturing hurting the overall Chinese economy, but that would take _a lot_ of companies to accomplish.

[https://9to5mac.com/2017/05/23/iphone-market-share- gartner-q...](https://9to5mac.com/2017/05/23/iphone-market-share- gartner-q1-2017/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Tim Cook went there to get humiliated. Given what's at stake for his company, I doubt he had alternatives. I guess that's what a CEO would do. However by giving that speech he accomplished nothing but to confirm that he holds no ground against his local competitors whatsoever, and the article correctly points this out. China keeps laughing in the face of the West. The weakness and passiveness of western "democracies" is astounding, but no wonder that when you spend all your time to play internal politics there's little time left to envision an international strategy.

I wonder what it'll take for Western governments to get their stuff together and elaborate a response.

<comment><USER8> >The weakness and passiveness of western "democracies" is astounding

It's frustrating for me too, but having spent a significant amount of time in both China and the USA, I can say with absolute conviction, I'd still rather live in the USA.

But consider this. The only reason we tolerate their shenanigans is that they offer their unwashed masses to us as the 21st Century-equivalent of slave labor. Look at what is happening to their lands, waters, and sky. There is no doubt that China continues to be exploited, continues to remain in the position it has always occupied in dealings with the west.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The WP article links to a Bloomberg article[0] which boasts a more straightforward headline:

 _Cook Kisses the Ring_

[0] [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-04/cook- kiss...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-04/cook-kisses-the- ring)

<comment><USER10> Savage. This is part of the reason I don't use Apple products unless I have to.

<comment><USER11> What products do you use then? Chinese-made Android phones?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> "The theme of this conference — developing a digital economy for openness and shared benefits — is a vision we at Apple share," Cook said, in widely reported remarks. "We are proud to have worked alongside many of our partners in China to help build a community that will join a common future in cyberspace."

I don't even know how to react to his friendly remarks towards China. Is it to keep the government happy and keep profiting from the Chinese market? That would make sense. But sometimes I feel like he's become too friendly.

<comment><USER13> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowtow#Diplomacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowtow#Diplomacy)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I am from India and people always look at China and say "look at how that country progressed". I always cringe at that statement. A country is not judged by how well it treats it citizens during the fun times, it is during the unrest that their treatment matters.

I'd rather prefer a cycle than the 400kmph trains Chinese have but I want the freedom of speech I get in India. (of course 2014-current we don't have much freedom of speech, but this is a democracy and will always stay a democracy.)

<comment><USER15> Different countries different values. Most probably majority of Chinese people care more about having a peaceful and prosperous life. At least this is what my Chinese friends tell me.

They're also really happy to be able to own an iPhone. It's a huge status symbol there. They couldn't care less about the "Western Internet". Baidu, Weibo, Alibaba, Taobao etc. are more than enough in everyday life.

<comment><USER16> What's interesting though is the huge change of opinion of people in the last 15 years. When I first came to China, everybody was optimistic, the future was bright, everything would work out.

Now when I talk to people from the lower classes, they are bitter and tell me that, yeah China progressed, but their life is worse. The gap has increased between the rich and the poor and I don't think China is a great role model in term of progress.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> People lap up Apple's PR about how altruistic they are especially in the US, but then use the "but the shareholders" cop out with regards to anything to do with China.

<comment><USER18> Apple's tax evasion to the tune of billions has been going on for years, it's a shame that their "Double Irish" evasion scheme revealed in the Paradise Papers has flown relatively under the radar

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I've always wondered why the western countries didn't take a much harder stance on China's anti-competitive practices. Chinese economy might is basically (or was) built with western capital (intelectuall also) and a lot of it was stolen. Or they only saw short-term profits even though in the long run it will bite them hard?

</comment><comment><USER20> You sold your soul Tim for the bottom line. Enough of the charade and just admit it. No one believes you.

<comment><USER21> The problem is that many people _do_ believe his bullshit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Yes, shame on Cook to kiss the ring, but Apple gets to bring its top notch service and product to Chinese users, set the fine example of what brand, quality, design and technology can achieve. What have Google achieved for Chinese users by quitting China 7 yrs ago? Lack of competition brought new height of profit to Baidu and continuous damage to users[1][2], I certainly don't blame Sergey Brin for that[3], but nothing for Chinese users to cheer on that either.

Innocent age of Internet has died. I don't think there a right answer for Cook, but there're probably some worse answers, I'm grateful he did not take those and people who I care about can still buy iPhones in China.

[1] [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-baidu/baidu-promotes- fake...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-baidu/baidu-promotes-fake-drug- sites-chinese-tv-station-idUSTRE66I1HK20100719)

[2] [http://www.businessinsider.com/baidu-being-investigated- afte...](http://www.businessinsider.com/baidu-being-investigated-after- student-dies-taking-experimental-cancer-drug-found-on-the-site-2016-5)

[3] [https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/interview- sergey-b...](https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/interview-sergey-brin- on-googles-china-gambit/)

<comment><USER23> > What have Google achieved for Chinese users by quitting China 7 yrs ago?

They earned the respect of many people, who are used to continually seeing corporations sell out their values for profits.

Getting out of potentially the biggest market in the world because of incompatible values = courage. As opposed to removing a headphone jack from a phone.

<comment><USER24> You could also say they have enabled the rise of Baidu and with it a Google clone that is completely under the control of the Chinese government.

I do respect Google for pulling out - this was actually the last time Google actually really tried to "don't be evil". Since then, they've thrown that overboard. But that one time, they did it.

The problem is that the outcome was worse than remaining there. That was a lack of wisdom on Google's part.

Apple could pull out, lose Billions of dollars and a hundred million users, Chinese wouldn't be able to get their hands on iPhones, and Samsung, Meizu, Huawei, and so on would be having a field day selling their government- approved devices, which, in terms of privacy, are infinitely worse than iPhones.

Apple is actually implementing some pretty serious privacy features, like end to end encryption in iMessage and so on.

<comment><USER25> You're presenting a false dichotomy.

Google would have lost to Baidu regardless and don't think for a second this wasn't factored in their decision.

The Chinese are known for degrading the online experience of western services in preference for local alternatives. This coupled with the fact that Baidu really is _better_ for the Chinese market, just how Yandex has been better for the Russian market.

> _Apple is actually implementing some pretty serious privacy features, like > end to end encryption in iMessage and so on._

The end to end encryption in iMessage is shit because Apple is managing the encryption keys and if your adversary is the Chinese government you'll get fucked given Apple's newfound willingness to bend over.

<comment><USER26> Have you ever used Baidu? It's worse than Google even when searching for Chinese. Baidu did a few things well: it was good for finding pirated content and porn, but for actual research, it's horrible.

<comment><USER27> I don't think OP was saying Google would lose to Baidu because of quality, but because the Chinese government has deep fingers in Baidu there's a very good chance they will cripple Google's services in favor of Baidu's.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Is amazon trying to hit Apple hard? This is the second critical article about Apple on the same day. Where are the articles about amazon's practices?

</comment><comment><USER29> > Alongside Cook in endorsing China's digital vision were officials from > countries such as Saudi Arabia and Serbia, it noted.

Not the examples I want to use to show the "openness".

The interesting thing for me is we have to celebrate "open internet vision" in 2017. So, is China admitting they were not open in last couple of years?

</comment><comment><USER30> Apple is turning into the definition of the "big evil" that MS used to be 15 years ago

</comment><comment><USER31> It seems the world has come full circle. This seems to be a close analogue of the Macartney Embassy([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macartney_Embassy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macartney_Embassy)) that went to China in 1793. Except that now the kowtow has been replaced by placating speeches.

</comment><comment><USER32> This is looking like the show Mr Robot when the UN passes a motion to allow China to annex Congo. It's fucking preposterous.

<comment><USER33> Wait, they're straight up annexing it in the show? That's ridiculous. Not like they don't own it already though.

<comment><USER32> Yeah it seemed utterly ridiculous in the show. But looking at Tim Cook sucking it up like this publicly it doesn't seem so far off now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> The only solution is to own your company, otherwise an impersonal set of shareholders own you. The IPO removes moral degrees of freedom. Everyone, build SMEs!

</comment><comment><USER35> I think any vision of an open and equal Internet is going to fail in the long term, not only because it does not work in the interests of governements and major corporations - but also because people don't want it.

China explicitly censors its Internet as a way of control, whereas in the west news agencies implicitly censor news through selective reporting and giving greater weight to stories that support the narrative they want to push.

I'm not convinced one is any worse than the other, the west is slightly better in that you may not be sent to jail over a dissenting opinion - but good luck trying to effect any kind of change.

<comment><USER36> "but good luck trying to effect any kind of change"

One US president has already been kicked out of office due to jounalists, and we may see it happen again in the near future. What do you think would happen to those journalists in China, and how effective do you think they would be?

<comment><USER37> Clinton resigned actually. He was caught red handed and chose the smart way out, since nowadays that episode is almost forgotten. Even with this surge of witch hunts over alledged sexual misconduct.

<comment><USER38> Clinton did not resign, nor was he removed from office. Are you thinking of Nixon?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> It seems from my perspective that Cook knows that technology alone will help expand viewpoints of people within China, which will ultimately lead to more democracy in general.

I think it's unfair to assume that if Apple was to outright leave the Chinese market that this would somehow change China's stance on censorship. Instead, it will just likely cause competition to fill the gap as already is the case with many things in China's tech scene today.

So what do people think is the right choice for them? Leave China all together and say "no way, we won't be here unless the internet is totally open" or "we'll accept it.. for now"?

<comment><USER40> I suspect more prosaic motive. Tim Cook has fiduciary duty to his shareholders who want to sell in China as its big market and lot of money to be made. So Tim Cook has to do things like this in order to stay on the good side of the Chinese government. I wouldn't see any hidden idealism behind it.

<comment><USER41> > Tim Cook has fiduciary duty to his shareholders ...

That rationalization is used for a lot of damaging behavior; the duty to shareholders is not the only duty, and does not take priority over all the others. He also has responsibilities, for example, to employees and to his community, and for Apple the community is everywhere they sell products.

Supporting the oppression of others in order to make money is wrong; it's evil. His job as CEO is to navigate difficult issues like this one; the easy questions can be left to the junior managers.

<comment><USER40> Unfortunately in free market capitalist system duty to shareholders takes priority over anything else. As long as you are not breaking the law (but even that can be solved by lobbying government to add loopholes to legislature), shareholders will be happy with anything you do which makes them more money.

Do you suggest Apple leave Chinese market? I'm not sure Tim Cook could get away with that even if he wanted to. Board would replace him with CEO more aligned with profit oriented shareholders imho. Tim Cook is not Steve Jobs, he is certainly be replaceable.

<comment><USER41> > in free market capitalist system duty to shareholders takes priority over > anything else

That's not actually true, though I agree that it is often repeated and there is pressure from shareholders and others. It's not and never has required absolute obedience; and IIRC even that idea in the theoretical sense was developed in the 1980s, long after the advent of large public companies.

> Do you suggest Apple leave Chinese market?

His choices are not so extreme. He doesn't have to show up at this conference, for example, or he can make a speech that promotes the freedom of the Chinese people. There are many other ways to navigate the situation; see my prior comment regarding that subject.

<comment><USER40> > He doesn't have to show up at this conference

I agree. But that would be mostly meaningful gesture as it wouldn't change anything.

> he can make a speech that promotes the freedom of the Chinese people

This might be more meaningful and would actually mean he is putting something on the line / has skin in the game. Which is why I can't imagine Cook doing that. He would be putting Apple's business in China in danger by doing that.

> There are many other ways to navigate the situation; see my prior comment > regarding that subject.

Yes, but the more meaningful actions Cook / Apple could take, the more likely it would damage their business. So it is against their interest to do anything other than empty gestures.

<comment><USER41> >> He doesn't have to show up at this conference

> I agree. But that would be mostly meaningful gesture as it wouldn't change > anything.

I disagree about its impact. He legitimizes the oppression of the Chinese people with his presence; he says 'this is ok'.

> it is against their interest to do anything other than empty gestures

It is against their immediate financial interest; my whole point is that there are other interests too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Is he naive or greedy? Or is this actually a good thing? I don't know.

Combine this with the other story on the front page where Apple shares the wireframe of your face. Not reassuring.

<comment><USER43> It doesn't share the wireframe of your face. It shares a generic face wireframe morphed to fit on your face. This wireframe lacks details that could be used to identify you in a way FaceID does. This is not worse than letting the developers access front facing camera to take a picture of your face.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> China is a well run country, but most countries seem that way with 5%+ economic growth YoY.

In reality, it's slowly becoming a prison of 1.3 billion people that is gently closing its maws on them. Life is good, growth is great, but whenever the next crisis comes, which it will, the government will not be replaced like in Democracy but actively fight back, with technology developed by the best American companies. From there, they will probably close down and self-seal their economy like the Soviet Union did with some success, and embark on a period of profound killing as a means of control.

<comment><USER45> China is NOT well run. Life is NOT good. The growth is FAKE 7% every year.

There was a very recent event happening in Beijing kindergarten regarding sexual abuses....and the authorities CLAMPED DOWN ON THE MEDIA and DENIED IT TOOK PLACE. [http://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/rumors-11292017123013....](http://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/rumors-11292017123013.html)

Why do you think the rich and the intellectuals are fleeing the country? Polluted air, polluted water, polluted food, hidden poverty, censorship, police state, the list goes on and on....

<comment><USER46> Polluted air, polluted water, polluted food, hidden poverty, blah, blah, ... and yet China's life expectancy is only 3 year shorter than America's (76 vs 79), and China's population is 4 times as bigger as America's. I will have to say, good job Chinese government!

<comment><USER47> Probably due to the trading all Chinese diet. Which has very little to do with the communist party, who are a very recent development.

<comment><USER47> _traditional_ Chinese diet. Thanks autocorrect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> I recently met Chinese Commissioner at a party and he told me that the political class thinks of censorship as a weakness in their society and is fully aware that it is going to hit them badly.

He was like the censorship is more driven by vested and corrupt interests more than competence of the communist party.

<comment><USER49> It could, but in a way it's currently acting like import tariffs but for the Internet. It's making it easier to create and run a local clone of an international company than to import the international company's services to use locally.

So if or when censorship goes down, it will be Chinese companies that will be more powerful on the Internet, not western ones.

<comment><USER48> BS. China ends up paying huge cost for this censorship which the government too acknowledges. Youtube sensations are softpowers. A kid can learn million skills by visiting youtube. If you don't have that you have a backward society. China is wasting useful capital on reinventing the wheel that could have gone into building something even greater.

(Do we really save $10 by cutting our own hair at home?)

<comment><USER49> Yes you could argue that China is paying a higher cost now, but their goal is to protect and nurture their own industries so that those industries can dominate the world later on.

It's like South Korea in the 1960's and later from what I've read. The government invested and subsidised (i.e. protected) their young growing industries so that they could grow to be competitive on the global market.

The USA did likewise when it was young, with tariffs on imported goods, blatant copying of intellectual property, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Time to switch to Android. If Google have one thing going for them it's that they don't give face to this brainless bullshit.

<comment><USER51> > Time to switch to Android.

Fwiw, the CEO of Google was at the same event. So... no difference.

<comment><USER50> Oh I don't doubt that all of these people were there, but the facts remain

And it doesn't necessarily imply that they all had secret meetings with Xi, which Tim did.

<comment><USER52> Or maybe their meetings were, you know, actually secret.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> China has been bravely dealing with a rampant "fake news" problem for decades, and should serve as a model for US regulators and social media companies.

<comment><USER24> They're working on it...

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Steve jobs is rolling over in his grave right now..... Just think about how Apple use to be back in the day and how they were all about being free and open.... and now this. Steve Jobs would've never supported this in a thousand years. I have lost so much respect for Tim Cook

<comment><USER55> 1984 Mac ad, anybody?

<comment><USER56> The 1984 Mac was a closed system -- about as forbidding as a system could be for independent developers.</comment></comment></comment>