> I'd hope it's true that the core engineers have looked at the company's website. So either they didn't notice a problem, didn't care, or cared but didn't have enough power to get things fixed.
Nonsense. How is a developer going to notice this? It's a simple misconfiguration of an HTTP header. That's it. Their AR and hardware developers may have never even done web work and may not know how HTML 5 video even works to even THINK this could be an issue.
I work for a company but I don't check their main, consumer facing websites much if at all because that's not what I work on. So you're telling me if there is an issue with one of them it reflects poorly on myself?
> But I don't think it's unreasonable to evaluate a company by the materials the put forward specifically for evaluating them.
Since when does HTML help you evaluate AR and hardware engineering?
I've been doing a lot of research into ways to automate the assessment of website credibility (and thus the organization / company / information presented), even before 'fake news' started to get its 15 minutes...
It may be just a HTTP header issue, but someone's not on the ball. I'd be annoyed if my mobile bandwidth was getting eaten up by a obvious problem. But credibility judgements are always dependent on what the viewer deems to be relevant criteria. So both of you are correct. A simple problem with the website says something about the company, not the tech. It is a minor thing but perhaps means something.
One company I worked for had a website created by a 3rd party, a cookie cutter thing, which I wasn't too impressed by given my experience in websites. It also had some little glitch that I found and pointed out on my first day. And that turned out to be a difficult year and a half... some personal stuff on my side, but the company was also managed in a substandard way. Lots of people were frustrated, it turned out. A tech company with good front end dev/designers ought to have a spiffy website.
I'd be inclined to give ML most of a break, but a tech company that has problems with its marketing side, especially when marketing something like ML is so crucial... what percentage of their initial customers is going to be people in tech? Gamers? Who do notice these sorts of details?
> I'd be annoyed if my mobile bandwidth was getting eaten up by a obvious problem.
When you view in a mobile context it does a download of much smaller videos and only once. It works differently for mobile and requires you to trigger playback.
> A simple problem with the website says something about the company, not the tech. It is a minor thing but perhaps means something.
So email them and maybe they'll fix it? Unless you'd rather continue using it as a yard stick of dubious value.
> I'd be inclined to give ML most of a break, but a tech company that has problems with its marketing side, especially when marketing something like ML is so crucial... what percentage of their initial customers is going to be people in tech? Gamers? Who do notice these sorts of details?
You're putting way too much stock into such trivial things. Unless you're specifically looking for an issue you're not going to find this. The amount of people who would find an issue like this are on the edge of edge cases.
You seem to have an axe to grind against the company.
>You seem to have an axe to grind against the company.
No, I said I'd be inclined to give ML a break. I don't have an opinion about ML other than I'm tired of hearing about them. I'm not the parent commenter.
The main point I was trying to make was that credibility is assessed by people in different ways depending on their expertise / knowledge base / etc. So someone knowledgeable about websites would notice such a thing and the average person wouldn't. So arguing over whether something is an absolute signifier of credibility or not is sort of pointless.
Nonsense. How is a developer going to notice this? It's a simple misconfiguration of an HTTP header. That's it. Their AR and hardware developers may have never even done web work and may not know how HTML 5 video even works to even THINK this could be an issue.
I work for a company but I don't check their main, consumer facing websites much if at all because that's not what I work on. So you're telling me if there is an issue with one of them it reflects poorly on myself?
> But I don't think it's unreasonable to evaluate a company by the materials the put forward specifically for evaluating them.
Since when does HTML help you evaluate AR and hardware engineering?
Get off your high horse.