3 ms·
> The W3C version of the story goes something like this. The rise of apps has weakened the web. In the pre-app days, the web was the only game in town, so compa
by icc97 9y ago
> The W3C version of the story goes something like this. The rise of apps has weakened the web. In the pre-app days, the web was the only game in town, so companies had to play by web rules: open standards, open web. But now that apps exist and nearly everyone uses them, big companies can boycott the web, forcing their users into apps instead. That just accelerates the rise of apps, and weakens the web even more. Apps are used to implement DRM, so DRM-using companies are moving to apps. To keep entertainment companies from killing the web outright, the Web must have DRM too.
What it sounds like 'we' could do, is work to create websites using Service Workers [0] so that the importance of native apps becomes irrelevant [1].
[0]: https://jakearchibald.github.io/isserviceworkerready/ https://jakearchibald.github.io/isserviceworkerready/
[1]: https://xkcd.com/1367/ https://xkcd.com/1367/
- tannhaeuser 9y agoThe passage you cited (eg. W3C's motivation) is what I'm having trouble understanding. Why does the Web have to be everything to everybody? If "content providers" want apps and DRM, so be it IMHO; let them build up a content network and buy in from users. Why does the Web need to compete here? Why lend credibility and accessibility to closed-world networks? Why not let the Web be the place for text content and information it was designed for, rather than foobar web standards?
- icc97 9y agoFor the W3C to have importance then the web needs to be the main delivery mechanism. If Netflix can just say "either do what we want or we'll just use another solution", then they can force through their demands. I think using apps seems a backwards step to the days of having to write cross platform software. So it's better if there is just the one delivery mechanism that Apple and Google don't have total control over.