6 ms·

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 c

by 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")
        zepto 6y ago
        Can you see how they also create privacy problems?
        sangnoir 6y ago
        If ramps hypothetically did create privacy problems, would you still wish them out of existence, despite their utility to other people?
  - echelon 6y ago
    Imagine if apps as they exist today were actually running on a web platform. Apps indistinguishable to the ones you use today. They're downloaded over www. They call device APIs But they're written in Rust or WASM or something. Visit Netflix.com and suddenly you have the native Netflix app instantaneously on your device. And it works just the same as the one you use today. That's what I want to see. The web isn't just HTML and JavaScript. It's not just documents or web apps. It can be native too. It's a protected runtime. And it'll be fast.
- zepto 6y ago
  Do these exist on Android? If not, why not? If they do, why hasn’t it enabled Android to leapfrog iOS?
  - themacguffinman 6y ago
    These are web APIs, not Android/iOS specific, and IIRC Google and possibly other browser vendors have expressed interest in these APIs. Web standards require voluntary cooperation and isn't something that can be resolved by allowing "better" standards variants to win in a marketplace over others (otherwise they wouldn't really be standards). Apple has pre-emptively blocked the standardization of these APIs because they effectively have veto power, and they have veto power because web standards aren't really a free market. Browser vendors choose not to ship standards that major browsers don't all agree on, which means that Apple's singular objection scuttles the process by design. Of course this is one of the risks you have with standards, one bad actor can screw everything up. It's why standards often suck and it's a happy miracle that the web is as good as it is. When Apple themselves can screw up a standard that they directly compete with (web vs native iOS) from the inside, well, that's just too convenient for them.
    - zepto 6y ago
      This isn’t accurate. There are plenty of instances of browser vendors implementing API’s ahead of other vendors. It simply isn’t true that vendors always wait for agreement. Apple’s participation is important, but not mandatory.
      - themacguffinman 6y ago
        They implement APIs ahead of other vendors because someone has to do it first and try out an implementation, most standards start out as experimental implementations. But when other major browsers reject it as a standard, the API is usually deprecated. I'm sure there exist instances of vendors not waiting for agreement, those are rare exceptions because it essentially breaks the standard. Web fragmentation was a big problem for a long time and the major browsers have largely willingly agreed to avoid that. Apple's participation is de facto mandatory, they control a major browser and other major browser vendors won't ship something that Apple has openly declared they will never support.
cookiengineer 6y ago
> 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. While I agree with your points that Apple in general contributed a lot when it comes to how humans perceive technology (for better or worse), I cannot let this argument stand untouched. - WebKit is NOT developed in the open. - It has a private bug tracker nobody outside Apple can see. Try to report a bug, even as a bug reporter you can't see shit what's happening with it. And this wasn't the case before ~2009, from personal experience. - Over 80% of contributions were actually from Mozilla or Google. - WebKit source code is still released 6 months after it was developed, leaving nobody outside Apple's internal team with the capability to even discuss features or APIs. - Apple's "Open Source" philosophy is the minimum legal requirement, aka dumping a fucking zip file with random shit to a server and forget about it afterwards. Lots of people from Chromium have been in contact with Apple's legal team until they "really complied" and actually dumped the full source code (again, as a shitty zip file). Apple didn't do this on their own, and they never have. - The Blink incident. Don't forget this. A shitload of contributors left WebKit because of the previous points, and now Chromium is getting dominant due to Blink. Do you think this is a coincidence? All these policies how Apple "loves Open Source" speak against the fact. Also, don't forget bash, tcsh, zsh and pretty much all related to the brew ecosystem. These people, while they still love Apple's ecosystem, never benefited a single dollar and neither a single contribution from Apple. If you don't believe me, pick a random zip file on Apple's "open source server" [1], contact the maintainer of said project and ask them about how they think Apple helps them. The answer is: not at all. I won't dig into the other facts which made the Web crippled, where we've been before with IE6 and ActiveX. Humanity hasn't learned shit from that lesson. And /u/themacguffinman did that already in his own comment to elaborate this fact [2] [1] https://opensource.apple.com/ https://opensource.apple.com/ [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25285306 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25285306
- zepto 6y ago
  This depends on your definition of “Developed in the open”. Nobody is disputing that other people contributed to WebKit, however what is true is that WebKit was brought to the level of maturity require to create a competitive desktop browser before those contributions. The fact that competitors are able to use WebKit, and that Blink exists is validation that WebKit is really open. I do agree that Apple controls development of the mainline engine though, but that changes nothing about the meaning.

by zepto 6y ago

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")
      - zepto 6y ago
        Can you see how they also create privacy problems?
        sangnoir 6y ago
        If ramps hypothetically did create privacy problems, would you still wish them out of existence, despite their utility to other people?
- echelon 6y ago
  Imagine if apps as they exist today were actually running on a web platform. Apps indistinguishable to the ones you use today. They're downloaded over www. They call device APIs But they're written in Rust or WASM or something. Visit Netflix.com and suddenly you have the native Netflix app instantaneously on your device. And it works just the same as the one you use today. That's what I want to see. The web isn't just HTML and JavaScript. It's not just documents or web apps. It can be native too. It's a protected runtime. And it'll be fast.
zepto 6y ago
Do these exist on Android? If not, why not? If they do, why hasn’t it enabled Android to leapfrog iOS?
- themacguffinman 6y ago
  These are web APIs, not Android/iOS specific, and IIRC Google and possibly other browser vendors have expressed interest in these APIs. Web standards require voluntary cooperation and isn't something that can be resolved by allowing "better" standards variants to win in a marketplace over others (otherwise they wouldn't really be standards). Apple has pre-emptively blocked the standardization of these APIs because they effectively have veto power, and they have veto power because web standards aren't really a free market. Browser vendors choose not to ship standards that major browsers don't all agree on, which means that Apple's singular objection scuttles the process by design. Of course this is one of the risks you have with standards, one bad actor can screw everything up. It's why standards often suck and it's a happy miracle that the web is as good as it is. When Apple themselves can screw up a standard that they directly compete with (web vs native iOS) from the inside, well, that's just too convenient for them.
  - zepto 6y ago
    This isn’t accurate. There are plenty of instances of browser vendors implementing API’s ahead of other vendors. It simply isn’t true that vendors always wait for agreement. Apple’s participation is important, but not mandatory.
    - themacguffinman 6y ago
      They implement APIs ahead of other vendors because someone has to do it first and try out an implementation, most standards start out as experimental implementations. But when other major browsers reject it as a standard, the API is usually deprecated. I'm sure there exist instances of vendors not waiting for agreement, those are rare exceptions because it essentially breaks the standard. Web fragmentation was a big problem for a long time and the major browsers have largely willingly agreed to avoid that. Apple's participation is de facto mandatory, they control a major browser and other major browser vendors won't ship something that Apple has openly declared they will never support.

cookiengineer 6y ago

> 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. While I agree with your points that Apple in general contributed a lot when it comes to how humans perceive technology (for better or worse), I cannot let this argument stand untouched. - WebKit is NOT developed in the open. - It has a private bug tracker nobody outside Apple can see. Try to report a bug, even as a bug reporter you can't see shit what's happening with it. And this wasn't the case before ~2009, from personal experience. - Over 80% of contributions were actually from Mozilla or Google. - WebKit source code is still released 6 months after it was developed, leaving nobody outside Apple's internal team with the capability to even discuss features or APIs. - Apple's "Open Source" philosophy is the minimum legal requirement, aka dumping a fucking zip file with random shit to a server and forget about it afterwards. Lots of people from Chromium have been in contact with Apple's legal team until they "really complied" and actually dumped the full source code (again, as a shitty zip file). Apple didn't do this on their own, and they never have. - The Blink incident. Don't forget this. A shitload of contributors left WebKit because of the previous points, and now Chromium is getting dominant due to Blink. Do you think this is a coincidence? All these policies how Apple "loves Open Source" speak against the fact. Also, don't forget bash, tcsh, zsh and pretty much all related to the brew ecosystem. These people, while they still love Apple's ecosystem, never benefited a single dollar and neither a single contribution from Apple. If you don't believe me, pick a random zip file on Apple's "open source server" [1], contact the maintainer of said project and ask them about how they think Apple helps them. The answer is: not at all. I won't dig into the other facts which made the Web crippled, where we've been before with IE6 and ActiveX. Humanity hasn't learned shit from that lesson. And /u/themacguffinman did that already in his own comment to elaborate this fact [2] [1] https://opensource.apple.com/ https://opensource.apple.com/ [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25285306 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25285306

zepto 6y ago
This depends on your definition of “Developed in the open”. Nobody is disputing that other people contributed to WebKit, however what is true is that WebKit was brought to the level of maturity require to create a competitive desktop browser before those contributions. The fact that competitors are able to use WebKit, and that Blink exists is validation that WebKit is really open. I do agree that Apple controls development of the mainline engine though, but that changes nothing about the meaning.