4 ms·
I disagree with the premise. I'll do a quick analysis on why. Google Chrome is Google's master plan to remove responsibility from the Operating System and put
by syrusakbary 5y ago
I disagree with the premise. I'll do a quick analysis on why.
Google Chrome is Google's master plan to remove responsibility from the Operating System and put it into their full control. Of course, they have operating power to move forward 300 APIs at the same time. However, they do it with the main propose of governing the ecosystem where those APIs are pushed (the web).
The only way to be up to date with all those changes is power (operating money).
Firefox is barely able to catch up with all the updates to the standards... there is obviously a burden on what is needed to be implemented for a browser in 2020 vs what was necessary 10 years ago.
However, Apple argument is not about delivering value to their users via a browser, since that's an ecosystem they don't control. They deliver value through their macOS/iOS SDKs, which are ecosystems they fully own.
Apple moves Safari as minimal as possible (regarding new APIs added) to make sure people can still browse, but while still incentivizing their own routes.
This kind of API strategies are everywhere the software touches. From Apple moving Metal forward instead of Vulkan, Microsoft with Directx12. Google with Flutter (towards cross-platform API UI dominance) and so on.
I don't think is a question of what the companies want, but what do their users use.
As long as Safari is the dominant browser in Apple's ecosystem, they will make sure you can max out the value received through other ways that align more with their vision and proprietary APIs.
So, if you consider "Web" what Google is pushing on now, it's clear Safari is not pushing forward in that ecosystem.
But none of them do it for the sake of their users, but their ecosystems
- pjmlp 5y agoThose that embrace Chrome have literally helped Google with their masterplan to turn the Web into ChromeOS. Safari, regardles of Apple's selfish reasons, is the last man standing.
- whatever_dude 5y agoSo your point is that the web sound be less capable, and Safari is the last browser trying to cap the web's knees. That seems to me like the point of all these recent articles.
- sbuk 5y agoThat seem like an ideal situation. Which 'web' are you referring to? The standards compliant, semantically structured one, or the Google 'web'?
- psd1 5y agoI'm not buying the dichotomy. Apart from anything browser-specific, JavaScript's weirdnesses ought to demolish this ideal as a real possibility. It's just a question of how broken, how crufty.
- sbuk 5y agoHow about how open? Browser specific JS is a misnomer because blink and V8 have ~70% market share. This is a bad thing for the open web. It was a bad thing when it was IE6, and allowing chromium based browser to grow beyond 70% while Google are firmly in the driving seat is more dangerous.
- cromwellian 5y agoSo instead of helping an evil master plan to have an open standard operating system that’s federated, you’d rather help an evil master plan to have a locked down walled garden OS controlled by a signal vendor, not opened sourced, with a 30% tax on all purchases, and you aren’t even allowed to install whatever app you want or to repair it when broke using a third party? At least you can fork ChromeOS, and apps can be hosted or ‘installed’ by any entity with the freedom to choose centralized control or not (as many school districts too)