4 ms·

> That means I need two versions of each image: something legacy or proprietary for Safari users (PNG, JPEG, HEIF) and something to appease the Google Gods (Web

> That means I need two versions of each image: something legacy or proprietary for Safari users (PNG, JPEG, HEIF) and something to appease the Google Gods (WebP) so I don't get blasted by Core Web Vitals. WebP uses VP8, which requires hardware support to run correctly. Apple's "proprietary" format is also open, and created by a standards body instead of Google. VP8 also has some patent claims on it by Nokia, even though Google has released it under a free patent license. I'd definitely second guess that if I were a legal dept. So really you're arguing that you prefer Google's proprietary format over Apple's. To each their own but know your desired format isn't as free and open as some would hope. > Chrome does it, too, but at least Chrome users have the ability to choose another browser; no such luck on iOS. What if iOS users view this as a feature? I know I certainly do. It's impossible these days to know with certainty which apps are running in a browser. And given Chrome supporting all the things it supports it can be a security issue. So knowing an app must be using webkit to me is a feature. > I don't want to be forced to use Apple's proprietary image and video formats to achieve decent performance in Safari Again, Apple's formats are open. And further this should be completely transparent to you as you should have conversion scripts in place already. > My sites would work better in Lynx if I didn't have to spend so much time making them work in Safari My experience is a bit different. I develop for Safari, then check it in Chrome and FF. It works most of the time with few exceptions that Chrome implements to perform it's magic. > It can't be that important if nobody even knows what it's called. That's actually the point. It supports the standards and you get a few extra market participants you wouldn't have if your customers happen to run that browser. You don't need to know the name at all, so long as it supports the standard. This benefits us by having more and more browser engines and competition, instead of the 3 we have today. > Phones from 8 years ago run sites a lot better when they don't have to download redundant code and JS polyfills to achieve what could've been done with pure CSS. The question is, is any of this needed? If it's CSS it clearly doesn't anything to do with the functionality of the site right?

zenexer 5y ago
> Apple’s “proprietary” format is also open No, it isn’t. It’s useless without HEVC, which is encumbered and requires royalties,[0] most of which go to Apple. VP8 is free (as in “free beer,” not as in “freedom”). > What if iOS users view this as a feature? They can view it however they like. I’m typing this on iOS and find it disappointing. > Again, Apple’s formats are open. HEVC is not open.[0] > My experience is a bit different. Chrome has its own issues, though, as does Firefox. Safari just seems to have more than the other two. For example, for the longest time, Safari was the only browser to support color() and DCI-P3. > That’s actually the point. While Safari might not have the nasty Google habit of coming up with their own standards, they do have the nasty IE habit of failing to keep up with widely accepted standards. For example, to this day, HTTP/2 server push remains broken and will crash Safari if you attempt to push a zero-byte resource. > The question is, is any of this needed? If you want to cater to an audience that prefers a clean, efficient UI while simultaneously avoiding creating a horrible mess of dark patterns, yes. If you want to run on as many browsers as possible without looking like a Word document, yes. If you want to appease Google so you don’t get deranked, yes. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding#Patent_licensing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding#P...
- tekknik 5y ago
  > No, it isn’t. It’s useless without HEVC, which is encumbered and requires royalties,[0] most of which go to Apple. VP8 is free (as in “free beer,” not as in “freedom”). HEVC is H265 which is not as widespread. But either way, one benefit to Google I guess is you can avoid the $2.60 device fee. But also scroll down and see how many companies were involved in HEVC vs VP8/9. > HEVC is not open.[0] Source code is readily available, codec formats are as well, all that's keeping it from being open is a licensing fee. > Chrome has its own issues, though, as does Firefox. Safari just seems to have more than the other two. For example, for the longest time, Safari was the only browser to support color() and DCI-P3. Again, not my experience. I have only had to perform CSS hacks on chrome because chrome adds some CSS features ala IE. > If you want to cater to an audience that prefers a clean, efficient UI while simultaneously avoiding creating a horrible mess of dark patterns, yes. If you want to run on as many browsers as possible without looking like a Word document, yes. If you want to appease Google so you don’t get deranked, yes. So using safari I am part of the audience that doesn't want a clean UI? That's the entire reason I use a Mac and Safari. So the question stands. What does CSS have to do with SEO? How do companies create cross browser experiences these days without making sites look like "word docs"? Apple themselves seem to have quite a design and css heavy site. Since Safari is such an issue for you, why not just block the sites? Likely because you'll lose market share. So instead you try to demand your customers switch to something you prefer they use to make it easier for you to make money off of them. When will you Google shills leave the rest of us alone? Also how much are they paying you to promote Chrome these days?

zenexer 5y ago

> Apple’s “proprietary” format is also open No, it isn’t. It’s useless without HEVC, which is encumbered and requires royalties,[0] most of which go to Apple. VP8 is free (as in “free beer,” not as in “freedom”). > What if iOS users view this as a feature? They can view it however they like. I’m typing this on iOS and find it disappointing. > Again, Apple’s formats are open. HEVC is not open.[0] > My experience is a bit different. Chrome has its own issues, though, as does Firefox. Safari just seems to have more than the other two. For example, for the longest time, Safari was the only browser to support color() and DCI-P3. > That’s actually the point. While Safari might not have the nasty Google habit of coming up with their own standards, they do have the nasty IE habit of failing to keep up with widely accepted standards. For example, to this day, HTTP/2 server push remains broken and will crash Safari if you attempt to push a zero-byte resource. > The question is, is any of this needed? If you want to cater to an audience that prefers a clean, efficient UI while simultaneously avoiding creating a horrible mess of dark patterns, yes. If you want to run on as many browsers as possible without looking like a Word document, yes. If you want to appease Google so you don’t get deranked, yes. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding#Patent_licensing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding#P...

tekknik 5y ago
> No, it isn’t. It’s useless without HEVC, which is encumbered and requires royalties,[0] most of which go to Apple. VP8 is free (as in “free beer,” not as in “freedom”). HEVC is H265 which is not as widespread. But either way, one benefit to Google I guess is you can avoid the $2.60 device fee. But also scroll down and see how many companies were involved in HEVC vs VP8/9. > HEVC is not open.[0] Source code is readily available, codec formats are as well, all that's keeping it from being open is a licensing fee. > Chrome has its own issues, though, as does Firefox. Safari just seems to have more than the other two. For example, for the longest time, Safari was the only browser to support color() and DCI-P3. Again, not my experience. I have only had to perform CSS hacks on chrome because chrome adds some CSS features ala IE. > If you want to cater to an audience that prefers a clean, efficient UI while simultaneously avoiding creating a horrible mess of dark patterns, yes. If you want to run on as many browsers as possible without looking like a Word document, yes. If you want to appease Google so you don’t get deranked, yes. So using safari I am part of the audience that doesn't want a clean UI? That's the entire reason I use a Mac and Safari. So the question stands. What does CSS have to do with SEO? How do companies create cross browser experiences these days without making sites look like "word docs"? Apple themselves seem to have quite a design and css heavy site. Since Safari is such an issue for you, why not just block the sites? Likely because you'll lose market share. So instead you try to demand your customers switch to something you prefer they use to make it easier for you to make money off of them. When will you Google shills leave the rest of us alone? Also how much are they paying you to promote Chrome these days?