4 ms·

> How exactly did ‘Steve Jobs cripple the web browser’? Some examples: - Automatically erasing all script-writeable storage after 7 days, crippling local PWAs

> 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.
  - Bedon292 6y ago
    I honestly think that is a massive privacy issue. Letting the web browser have any access those API is practically begging for abuse. There are enough privacy and tracking issues already with what they have access to without those being added on. The negative far outweighs any positive you have mentioned. Should there be better faster options for applications to run? Absolutely. Should they run in the web browser? I don't think so.
    - com2kid 6y ago
      How is clicking a link to a web page and tapping "accept" any different than clicking a link that loads an app store entry and tapping install? Heck use the same permission dialogues.
      - echelon 6y ago
        And the same sandboxing.
      - Bedon292 6y ago
        Who manages those permissions? The browser? The OS? Is it different dialogs than the OS? If not, you are now giving a browser the ability to delegate those permissions. Is it the same level of granularity? If I visit one page, say facebook and it gets permission. And then visit another page which embeds Facebook, does it still have all those permissions there? If I visit a page, and it hits 60 different URLs under the hood am I getting 60 accept buttons or blanket accepting all of them? As I see it, there is a ton of difference in scope there.
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.

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.
- Bedon292 6y ago
  I honestly think that is a massive privacy issue. Letting the web browser have any access those API is practically begging for abuse. There are enough privacy and tracking issues already with what they have access to without those being added on. The negative far outweighs any positive you have mentioned. Should there be better faster options for applications to run? Absolutely. Should they run in the web browser? I don't think so.
  - com2kid 6y ago
    How is clicking a link to a web page and tapping "accept" any different than clicking a link that loads an app store entry and tapping install? Heck use the same permission dialogues.
    - echelon 6y ago
      And the same sandboxing.
    - Bedon292 6y ago
      Who manages those permissions? The browser? The OS? Is it different dialogs than the OS? If not, you are now giving a browser the ability to delegate those permissions. Is it the same level of granularity? If I visit one page, say facebook and it gets permission. And then visit another page which embeds Facebook, does it still have all those permissions there? If I visit a page, and it hits 60 different URLs under the hood am I getting 60 accept buttons or blanket accepting all of them? As I see it, there is a ton of difference in scope there.

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.