8 ms·

> If you aren't worried about provided a first class experience to your iOS customers, then build for Chrome + Android. Although, that sounds a little like "bui

by untog 11y ago

> If you aren't worried about provided a first class experience to your iOS customers, then build for Chrome + Android. Although, that sounds a little like "build for IE6 + Windows" 15 years ago. Except that Android is the open one that is implementing agreed upon standards, and Apple is the laggard left behind.

TomBombadildoze 11y ago
> Apple is the laggard left behind citation needed
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- untog 11y ago
  The article itself cites things like the lack of support for WebRTC and Service Workers.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    I can't find a single iOS app I use that needs either of these.
    - untog 11y ago
      I'm not sure if you're trolling or sincere here. Of course iOS apps don't need them, they are native. We are talking about the capabilities of the iOS Safari browser.
      - toomuchtodo 11y ago
        That's my point. I'm rarely, if ever, in my browser on either of my iOS devices (iPhone 6 or iPad). If you're not writing a native app, don't bother. Facebook learned this lesson, I'm sure everyone else does eventually as well.
        untog 11y ago
        Yeah, because the browser doesn't offer the capabilities needed to render native apps redundant. I'm not sure why we're talking in a giant circle here. Clearly, the "build for IE6 + Windows" of 2016 is "build for native iOS", which was the original point I was making.
    - ryao 11y ago
      iOS apps are written in languages that have the ability to do equivalent things.
  - msh 11y ago
    Service workers seems like a performance and battery nightmare.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- evook 11y ago
  You learn to evaluate technologies working in a relevant sector or studying some information systems stuff. No citation needed IMHO. Would you demand citation if I tell you that 'mov ax, data' in assembler moves data to ax or look it up if you don't trust your own judgement at the moment?
  - peyton 11y ago
    They'd probably ask whether we're working with AT&T- or Intel-style syntax ;)
- kps 11y ago
  http://caniuse.com/ http://caniuse.com/
rhinoceraptor 11y ago
> implementing agreed upon standards Yeah, except most of your users' devices are still running 2+ year old software versions.
- untog 11y ago
  But unlike in iOS, the browser is a Play Store app which is updatable outside of major OS releases. So a two year old phone can run the latest version of Chrome. Why Apple still doesn't do this mystifies me.
  - criddell 11y ago
    Telling users that they have to install a new browser before they can fully use your app is a lousy experience though. And then two months later they will uninstall Chrome because (as far as they know) they never use it.
    - untog 11y ago
      That's not how it works. Most Android phones have come with Chrome preinstalled for a while now. That version is automatically updated, just like any other app.
      - criddell 11y ago
        It was enough of a problem less than four months ago that phonearena.com published an article about it: http://www.phonearena.com/news/How-to-change-your-Android-phones-default-browser-to-Google-Chrome_id76252 http://www.phonearena.com/news/How-to-change-your-Android-ph... I don't think Chrome is as ubiquitous as it should be. Do new cheap tablets (like the Kindle Fire) even ship with Chrome? New phones from Samsung don't have Chrome set as the default browser (not sure if it's even installed by default).
        untog 11y ago
        It probably isn't on the Kindle Fire, no, but neither is the Play Store. It might use Android as its base, but it's not really an Android tablet. And while I don't doubt there are many variations of Android device without Chrome installed, the devices that dominate the market (Samsung Galaxy and the like) have had Chrome preinstalled for a long time. From a brief Google it sounds like the default browser varies between phone, provider, etc. etc., so I can't say for certain. What I can tell you is that my analytics logs show the vast majority of Android users are running Chrome.
ryao 11y ago
> Except that Android is the open one that is implementing agreed upon standards, and Apple is the laggard left behind. Given that many of these things are potential exploit vectors, I am not inclined to fault Apple for taking its time to implement them. Also, we are at the point where the standards are driven by a select few companies. If I recall correctly, those are Apple, Google, Microsoft and Mozilla. Opera used to be there too, but I doubt Opera does much of anything there anymore and I suspect the same either is or will soon be true for Mozilla given its leadership issues.
- victorhooi 11y ago
  Do you have any evidence for your claim about "potential exploit vectors", or is it just speculation? I don't know if you can claim Chrome is insecure, simply because it supports more web standards. e.g. look at the results of the recent pwn2own contest: http://venturebeat.com/2016/03/18/pwn2own-2016-chrome-edge-and-safari-hacked-460k-awarded-in-total/ http://venturebeat.com/2016/03/18/pwn2own-2016-chrome-edge-a... There are other variables that probably have a greater impact on the security of a browser.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - ryao 11y ago
    In the past, changes to internet standards were about enabling better presentation of webpages. Now changes involve JavaScript APIs that access things traditionally reserved for plugins (which were a security nightmare) and native applications. Doing that can pose unforeseen security risks, such as the supercookie: http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/09/technology/security/super-cookies/ http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/09/technology/security/super-co... Not to mention, I posted elsewhere in this discussion that WebBluetooth seems like a way that an attacker with control of a server can run attacks against bluetooth devices that he otherwise would not have been able to access without breaking out of the sandbox. Once in control of one of those bluetooth devices, it would be possible to attack the system from the compromised devices. It is like giving unrestricted network access to Javascript once a user clicks accept (and they almost all would), except with a different network technology where devices all trust each other not to do malicious things. Given that security flaws can happen when new features are used in unforeseen ways, I am happy to see Apple take its time under the assumption that it is taking its time to implement things correctly.

by untog 11y ago

TomBombadildoze 11y ago

> Apple is the laggard left behind citation needed

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
untog 11y ago
The article itself cites things like the lack of support for WebRTC and Service Workers.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  I can't find a single iOS app I use that needs either of these.
  - untog 11y ago
    I'm not sure if you're trolling or sincere here. Of course iOS apps don't need them, they are native. We are talking about the capabilities of the iOS Safari browser.
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      That's my point. I'm rarely, if ever, in my browser on either of my iOS devices (iPhone 6 or iPad). If you're not writing a native app, don't bother. Facebook learned this lesson, I'm sure everyone else does eventually as well.
      - untog 11y ago
        Yeah, because the browser doesn't offer the capabilities needed to render native apps redundant. I'm not sure why we're talking in a giant circle here. Clearly, the "build for IE6 + Windows" of 2016 is "build for native iOS", which was the original point I was making.
  - ryao 11y ago
    iOS apps are written in languages that have the ability to do equivalent things.
- msh 11y ago
  Service workers seems like a performance and battery nightmare.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
evook 11y ago
You learn to evaluate technologies working in a relevant sector or studying some information systems stuff. No citation needed IMHO. Would you demand citation if I tell you that 'mov ax, data' in assembler moves data to ax or look it up if you don't trust your own judgement at the moment?
- peyton 11y ago
  They'd probably ask whether we're working with AT&T- or Intel-style syntax ;)
kps 11y ago
http://caniuse.com/ http://caniuse.com/

rhinoceraptor 11y ago

> implementing agreed upon standards Yeah, except most of your users' devices are still running 2+ year old software versions.

untog 11y ago
But unlike in iOS, the browser is a Play Store app which is updatable outside of major OS releases. So a two year old phone can run the latest version of Chrome. Why Apple still doesn't do this mystifies me.
- criddell 11y ago
  Telling users that they have to install a new browser before they can fully use your app is a lousy experience though. And then two months later they will uninstall Chrome because (as far as they know) they never use it.
  - untog 11y ago
    That's not how it works. Most Android phones have come with Chrome preinstalled for a while now. That version is automatically updated, just like any other app.
    - criddell 11y ago
      It was enough of a problem less than four months ago that phonearena.com published an article about it: http://www.phonearena.com/news/How-to-change-your-Android-phones-default-browser-to-Google-Chrome_id76252 http://www.phonearena.com/news/How-to-change-your-Android-ph... I don't think Chrome is as ubiquitous as it should be. Do new cheap tablets (like the Kindle Fire) even ship with Chrome? New phones from Samsung don't have Chrome set as the default browser (not sure if it's even installed by default).
      - untog 11y ago
        It probably isn't on the Kindle Fire, no, but neither is the Play Store. It might use Android as its base, but it's not really an Android tablet. And while I don't doubt there are many variations of Android device without Chrome installed, the devices that dominate the market (Samsung Galaxy and the like) have had Chrome preinstalled for a long time. From a brief Google it sounds like the default browser varies between phone, provider, etc. etc., so I can't say for certain. What I can tell you is that my analytics logs show the vast majority of Android users are running Chrome.

ryao 11y ago

> Except that Android is the open one that is implementing agreed upon standards, and Apple is the laggard left behind. Given that many of these things are potential exploit vectors, I am not inclined to fault Apple for taking its time to implement them. Also, we are at the point where the standards are driven by a select few companies. If I recall correctly, those are Apple, Google, Microsoft and Mozilla. Opera used to be there too, but I doubt Opera does much of anything there anymore and I suspect the same either is or will soon be true for Mozilla given its leadership issues.

victorhooi 11y ago
Do you have any evidence for your claim about "potential exploit vectors", or is it just speculation? I don't know if you can claim Chrome is insecure, simply because it supports more web standards. e.g. look at the results of the recent pwn2own contest: http://venturebeat.com/2016/03/18/pwn2own-2016-chrome-edge-and-safari-hacked-460k-awarded-in-total/ http://venturebeat.com/2016/03/18/pwn2own-2016-chrome-edge-a... There are other variables that probably have a greater impact on the security of a browser.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- ryao 11y ago
  In the past, changes to internet standards were about enabling better presentation of webpages. Now changes involve JavaScript APIs that access things traditionally reserved for plugins (which were a security nightmare) and native applications. Doing that can pose unforeseen security risks, such as the supercookie: http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/09/technology/security/super-cookies/ http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/09/technology/security/super-co... Not to mention, I posted elsewhere in this discussion that WebBluetooth seems like a way that an attacker with control of a server can run attacks against bluetooth devices that he otherwise would not have been able to access without breaking out of the sandbox. Once in control of one of those bluetooth devices, it would be possible to attack the system from the compromised devices. It is like giving unrestricted network access to Javascript once a user clicks accept (and they almost all would), except with a different network technology where devices all trust each other not to do malicious things. Given that security flaws can happen when new features are used in unforeseen ways, I am happy to see Apple take its time under the assumption that it is taking its time to implement things correctly.