4 ms·
I'm going to give Apple one potential benefit-of-the-doubt point here, despite the fact that I think there's also good reason to suspect they're not above succu
by wwweston 10y ago
I'm going to give Apple one potential benefit-of-the-doubt point here, despite the fact that I think there's also good reason to suspect they're not above succumbing to the incentives they have to hobble the web vs native.
If they're primarily about tablet and mobile devices now (lots of indicators that's the case), they're going to be concerned about battery life, performance, and other impacts on user experience. If history repeats itself, they're probably concerned about these things at a level of fussiness that other vendors often don't share. They might well not be on board with wasm for related reasons, or they might take longer to conclude it'll be OK, or work out whatever efforts make them feel good about it.
Or they might just lurve their walled garden a lot.
- bluejekyll 10y agoWhat does wasm have to do with battery life, and why would you assume its worse? I expect wasm to be be less resource intensive than JavaScript, as GC's and such won't be necessary.
- wwweston 10y agowasm may well be much more efficient and less resource intensive than JS. Seems likely enough, given the analogue of ASM on most machines. But, then again, most people don't write ASM. They target it. So in practice, the performance of apps taking advantage of wasm will have a lot to do with compilers and the culture/choices developers bring to writing the software targeted at the browser-as-runtime.
- Melchizedek 10y agoThey're concerned about not getting their 30% monopoly share of app store purchases if people use the web instead of native, not to mention the lock-in effect of native apps. Apple is the new Microsoft (but worse than MS ever was).