10 ms·

The inability of industry and academia (and the w3c) to create standards is what created the opportunity that enabled Apple to succeed. If standards had been t

by zepto 6y ago

The inability of industry and academia (and the w3c) to create standards is what created the opportunity that enabled Apple to succeed. If standards had been the solution, Apple wouldn’t have been able to differentiate themselves. Turn signals are a great example of why this idea is dead on arrival. They have been around for close to a century and the government mandated them 50 years ago. If you want the US computing industry to move at that speed, the government will make that happen for you. We just aren’t at the stage in computing where innovation is over and we can afford to force everyone to adhere to a government mandated design.

echelon 6y ago
> The inability of industry and academia (and the w3c) to create standards is what created the opportunity that enabled Apple to succeed. Steve Jobs crippled the web browser, wouldn't allow non-Safari browsers, and didn't open the hardware APIs the way modern web APIs and WASM seek to do. Don't misrepresent history. It was always about control. > Turn signals are a great example of why this idea is dead on arrival. They have been around for close to a century and the government mandated them 50 years ago. Air bags, tire standards, headlight specifications. You're picking on the wrong part of my argument. > If you want the US computing industry to move at that speed, the government will make that happen for you. This sounds like a boogeyman. I hypothesize computing evolution happens slower because of how locked down everything is. Smartphones are stagnant already - no government help required.
- zepto 6y ago
  Misrepresent history? How exactly did ‘Steve Jobs cripple the web browser’? I’m guessing you don’t know that Apple took the open source WebKit from KDE, and continued to develop it into a world class engine in the open. So open that Google was able to build Chrome with it. It’s still developed completely in the open now and is free to use in your platform, as most of Apple’s competitors actually do. That is about as far from ‘crippling the web’ as any company in history has ever been. As for saying that evolution in computing is slower because of how locked down things are, that seems like a view that is hard to understand. If you can’t see how fast things have moved in software over the past 5 years and then over the past 10, I think you just aren’t looking hard enough. Smartphone hardware design may have plateaued, but that’s just superficial. And in any case, a government standard isn’t going to make anything any less locked down. It will be just as locked down as it is now, more expensive to develop for, and the possibility of an open alternative emerging will be harder than ever, if not impossible.
  - themacguffinman 6y ago
    > How exactly did ‘Steve Jobs cripple the web browser’? Some examples: - Automatically erasing all script-writeable storage after 7 days, crippling local PWAs and preventing them from competing with native apps - dragging their feet on Service Worker support for ages, another PWA issue - delaying WebGPU standardization - blocking the standardization of numerous web hardware APIs: - Web Bluetooth - Web MIDI API - Magnetometer API - Web NFC API - Device Memory API - Network Information API - Battery Status API - Ambient Light Sensor - HDCP Policy Check extension for EME - Proximity Sensor - WebHID - Serial API - Web USB - Geolocation Sensor (background geolocation) - User Idle Detection
    - Bedon292 6y ago
      Why should any of those be web browser APIs? I don't want those anywhere near my browser. They all sound horrible. Edit: Sorry, I wrote this too fast and didn't finish my thought. To clarity, I meant they sound horrible from a privacy perspective, and I don't think some random website should even have to option to access those APIs. The web has enough tracking and malicious sites as it is.
      - sangnoir 6y ago
        So if you don't like something - it shouldn't exist, and no one else should have it?
        Bedon292 6y ago
        That is not what I said. I asked what the justification for them existing is. None of them sounded valuable, and seemed like just additional ways for ads and malicious sites to track you. So what are the up sides? I actually want to understand.
        sangnoir 6y ago
        None of them sounded valuable to you - I have no problem imagining how those APIs could be useful (e.g. some simple apps may be replaced by a web application). One can easily apply your argument against access ramps ("My establishment already has stairs, a ramp doesn't sound valuable")
- themacguffinman 6y ago
  You're missing the point that standardization usually creates subpar products, which allowed Apple to break standards and create a more valuable product. Standards are inherently stifling in so many ways, you risk a lot with heavy-handed forced standardization. Air bags, tire standards, and headlights are small parts of a car with limited standardization, it's not comparable to inviting the government to involve themselves in application & hardware platform creation that they have no expertise or stake in developing. Apple's behavior is definitely a problem, but government mandated standards are almost certainly not the answer.
  - Apocryphon 6y ago
    This is the argument against the public option. The existence of a higher industry baseline does not the negate the existence of those who would surpass that standard. It merely means that consumer protections do not begin at zero. If we aspire for a society where everyone is entitled to a basic level of healthcare, or a basic level of income, why not also a basic level of software quality and security?
    - themacguffinman 6y ago
      Because in most cases it's impossible to define what a basic level of software quality and security should be, and it's not likely that people agree on what that level is. Most of the economy is like this, you can't really pre-emptively define what is "good", the best way is to create a market and let consumers decide in aggregate. Security is a little easier to specify, it's a more clearly defined space but you still have to be careful or you end up with outdated standards actually holding back industry security. I have nothing against a public option, as long as it is an option. Government regulation of the tech industry doesn't sound to me like it's providing more options. I never thought basic income was a good idea in the first place, I'm not sure what to say about this. Basic healthcare is a more complicated case, but the healthcare industry doesn't look anything like the software industry. Regulating healthcare won't and shouldn't be like regulating software.
    - zepto 6y ago
      Apple’s software quality and security is, while far from perfect, at the top of the industry. Clearly they would meet any such baseline. Consumer protections of this kind would simply increase the cost of entry, and concentrate more power in the hands of those with capital, I.e. the incumbents and VCs.

by zepto 6y ago

echelon 6y ago

> The inability of industry and academia (and the w3c) to create standards is what created the opportunity that enabled Apple to succeed. Steve Jobs crippled the web browser, wouldn't allow non-Safari browsers, and didn't open the hardware APIs the way modern web APIs and WASM seek to do. Don't misrepresent history. It was always about control. > Turn signals are a great example of why this idea is dead on arrival. They have been around for close to a century and the government mandated them 50 years ago. Air bags, tire standards, headlight specifications. You're picking on the wrong part of my argument. > If you want the US computing industry to move at that speed, the government will make that happen for you. This sounds like a boogeyman. I hypothesize computing evolution happens slower because of how locked down everything is. Smartphones are stagnant already - no government help required.

zepto 6y ago
Misrepresent history? How exactly did ‘Steve Jobs cripple the web browser’? I’m guessing you don’t know that Apple took the open source WebKit from KDE, and continued to develop it into a world class engine in the open. So open that Google was able to build Chrome with it. It’s still developed completely in the open now and is free to use in your platform, as most of Apple’s competitors actually do. That is about as far from ‘crippling the web’ as any company in history has ever been. As for saying that evolution in computing is slower because of how locked down things are, that seems like a view that is hard to understand. If you can’t see how fast things have moved in software over the past 5 years and then over the past 10, I think you just aren’t looking hard enough. Smartphone hardware design may have plateaued, but that’s just superficial. And in any case, a government standard isn’t going to make anything any less locked down. It will be just as locked down as it is now, more expensive to develop for, and the possibility of an open alternative emerging will be harder than ever, if not impossible.
- themacguffinman 6y ago
  > How exactly did ‘Steve Jobs cripple the web browser’? Some examples: - Automatically erasing all script-writeable storage after 7 days, crippling local PWAs and preventing them from competing with native apps - dragging their feet on Service Worker support for ages, another PWA issue - delaying WebGPU standardization - blocking the standardization of numerous web hardware APIs: - Web Bluetooth - Web MIDI API - Magnetometer API - Web NFC API - Device Memory API - Network Information API - Battery Status API - Ambient Light Sensor - HDCP Policy Check extension for EME - Proximity Sensor - WebHID - Serial API - Web USB - Geolocation Sensor (background geolocation) - User Idle Detection
  - Bedon292 6y ago
    Why should any of those be web browser APIs? I don't want those anywhere near my browser. They all sound horrible. Edit: Sorry, I wrote this too fast and didn't finish my thought. To clarity, I meant they sound horrible from a privacy perspective, and I don't think some random website should even have to option to access those APIs. The web has enough tracking and malicious sites as it is.
    - sangnoir 6y ago
      So if you don't like something - it shouldn't exist, and no one else should have it?
      - Bedon292 6y ago
        That is not what I said. I asked what the justification for them existing is. None of them sounded valuable, and seemed like just additional ways for ads and malicious sites to track you. So what are the up sides? I actually want to understand.
        sangnoir 6y ago
        None of them sounded valuable to you - I have no problem imagining how those APIs could be useful (e.g. some simple apps may be replaced by a web application). One can easily apply your argument against access ramps ("My establishment already has stairs, a ramp doesn't sound valuable")
themacguffinman 6y ago
You're missing the point that standardization usually creates subpar products, which allowed Apple to break standards and create a more valuable product. Standards are inherently stifling in so many ways, you risk a lot with heavy-handed forced standardization. Air bags, tire standards, and headlights are small parts of a car with limited standardization, it's not comparable to inviting the government to involve themselves in application & hardware platform creation that they have no expertise or stake in developing. Apple's behavior is definitely a problem, but government mandated standards are almost certainly not the answer.
- Apocryphon 6y ago
  This is the argument against the public option. The existence of a higher industry baseline does not the negate the existence of those who would surpass that standard. It merely means that consumer protections do not begin at zero. If we aspire for a society where everyone is entitled to a basic level of healthcare, or a basic level of income, why not also a basic level of software quality and security?
  - themacguffinman 6y ago
    Because in most cases it's impossible to define what a basic level of software quality and security should be, and it's not likely that people agree on what that level is. Most of the economy is like this, you can't really pre-emptively define what is "good", the best way is to create a market and let consumers decide in aggregate. Security is a little easier to specify, it's a more clearly defined space but you still have to be careful or you end up with outdated standards actually holding back industry security. I have nothing against a public option, as long as it is an option. Government regulation of the tech industry doesn't sound to me like it's providing more options. I never thought basic income was a good idea in the first place, I'm not sure what to say about this. Basic healthcare is a more complicated case, but the healthcare industry doesn't look anything like the software industry. Regulating healthcare won't and shouldn't be like regulating software.
  - zepto 6y ago
    Apple’s software quality and security is, while far from perfect, at the top of the industry. Clearly they would meet any such baseline. Consumer protections of this kind would simply increase the cost of entry, and concentrate more power in the hands of those with capital, I.e. the incumbents and VCs.