4 ms·

Well, there goes the conspiracy theory that Apple was doing this to handicap web based apps.

by voxmatt 15y ago

bradleyland 15y ago
Heh :) I've also noticed that many of these "conspiracies" are based on an expectation that A) just because Apple hasn't done something right away, they're never going to do it, and B) if Apple files a patent for something, they're absolutely going to do it. See also: Stories regarding Apple disabling camera at concerts, etc.
- tsunamifury 15y ago
  have you considered that Apple files patents defensively i.e. to make sure no one makes a product which hinders the vision of their ecosystem?
  - kenjackson 15y ago
    What you described generally isn't considered defensive use of a patent.
ceejayoz 15y ago
I imagine all the conspiracy theorists will now go "oh, okay then", like the birthers did.
- drivebyacct2 15y ago
  You're right. It's unheard of for companies to react to consumer outrage. Apple's never done that. They certainly didn't back pedal on their ToS for AppStore apps, they certainly didn't react to negative feedback from the irremovable tracking, they certainly didn't react to publishers and users outraged about 30% that was being, uh rightfully taken from them. It was never a conspiracy theory. It was never people hating Apple. It was people worried that Apple would use their mite to try to crush web apps in order to lock people into their native platform. It's really not that unreasonable to be concerned about that (see every other thing I listed and notice how they're ALL related to locking in users and developers to the iOS platform.
  - danilocampos 15y ago
    >You're right. It's unheard of for companies to react to consumer outrage. A dozen nerds on a message board ranting about JS performance is nothing close to a consumer outrage. More likely Apple has a roadmap and optimizes it based on what effort will help the most users the earliest.
    - drivebyacct2 15y ago
      I'm not saying that didn't happen. I believe that it did too. I think it's absurd to dismiss everyone that had concerns about it. Can anyone actually explain the downvotes? Did I not contribute to the discussion? Is it unfair to question Apple's motives when they make absolutely NO bones about the fact that they're heavily invest even possibly in the exclusive use, of their platform? Oh well, apparently my defense of skepticism is either too radical for HN or caused me to be lumped in with Apple haters. Oh well, can't say I'm shocked. Oh, you guys. You are so cute/silly. press the arrow, walk away, don't bother actually engaging in a discussion. Because calling people "conspiracy theorists" in regards to a company with a track record is completely fair. What a bunch of jokesters.
baddox 15y ago
How does this mean it wasn't true that Apple was doing this to handicap web apps?

Well, there goes the conspiracy theory that Apple was doing this to handicap web based apps.

by voxmatt 15y ago

Well, there goes the conspiracy theory that Apple was doing this to handicap web based apps.

Heh :) I've also noticed that many of these "conspiracies" are based on an expectation that A) just because Apple hasn't done something right away, they're never going to do it, and B) if Apple files a patent for something, they're absolutely going to do it. See also: Stories regarding Apple disabling camera at concerts, etc.

tsunamifury 15y ago
have you considered that Apple files patents defensively i.e. to make sure no one makes a product which hinders the vision of their ecosystem?
- kenjackson 15y ago
  What you described generally isn't considered defensive use of a patent.

ceejayoz 15y ago

I imagine all the conspiracy theorists will now go "oh, okay then", like the birthers did.

drivebyacct2 15y ago
You're right. It's unheard of for companies to react to consumer outrage. Apple's never done that. They certainly didn't back pedal on their ToS for AppStore apps, they certainly didn't react to negative feedback from the irremovable tracking, they certainly didn't react to publishers and users outraged about 30% that was being, uh rightfully taken from them. It was never a conspiracy theory. It was never people hating Apple. It was people worried that Apple would use their mite to try to crush web apps in order to lock people into their native platform. It's really not that unreasonable to be concerned about that (see every other thing I listed and notice how they're ALL related to locking in users and developers to the iOS platform.
- danilocampos 15y ago
  >You're right. It's unheard of for companies to react to consumer outrage. A dozen nerds on a message board ranting about JS performance is nothing close to a consumer outrage. More likely Apple has a roadmap and optimizes it based on what effort will help the most users the earliest.
  - drivebyacct2 15y ago
    I'm not saying that didn't happen. I believe that it did too. I think it's absurd to dismiss everyone that had concerns about it. Can anyone actually explain the downvotes? Did I not contribute to the discussion? Is it unfair to question Apple's motives when they make absolutely NO bones about the fact that they're heavily invest even possibly in the exclusive use, of their platform? Oh well, apparently my defense of skepticism is either too radical for HN or caused me to be lumped in with Apple haters. Oh well, can't say I'm shocked. Oh, you guys. You are so cute/silly. press the arrow, walk away, don't bother actually engaging in a discussion. Because calling people "conspiracy theorists" in regards to a company with a track record is completely fair. What a bunch of jokesters.

baddox 15y ago

How does this mean it wasn't true that Apple was doing this to handicap web apps?