11 ms·

Open Web Advocacy

158 points by stack_framer 5y ago

mtomweb 5y ago
Hi, I’m Matthew Thomas. I set up the open-web-advocacy.org and am the primary author of the document. We don’t want this to be about personalities and want to focus on the problems at hand. Happy to answer questions and I hope some of you will join us in advocating a better future for the web.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  > Happy to answer questions and I hope some of you will join us in advocating a better future for the web If you actually advocate for open web, where's Chrome on your website? Chrome routinely releases its own internal APIs disguised as specs, calls them standards, ignores any and all concerns from both Safari and Firefox, and then proceeds to gaslight those two browser for not kowtowing themselves before Google's whims.
  - mtomweb 5y ago
    We're happy to target anti-competitive behaviour from any operating system or browser if it relates to the open-web. Currently our main focus is user's browser choice on all operating systems is possible and respected to restore the competitive pressures that push everything forward. That said we want to make list of other things to target and fix, but they have to be well understood and documented. If you're willing to type this up in detail... which APIs, what the issues are, comments from the various browser teams involved and why they came to that conclusion (and it's really important to talk to the individuals that were actually involved in whatever spec you were talking about) and then post in the discord, I'm sure folks would be interested. It's also really important to be specific as to why the behaviour is harmful to end consumers. We also need to order the issues in terms of priority and how damaging they are to the wider ecosystem. Some issues with Google include equal WebAPK minting system on Android, and respecting a user's browser choice via Android or Google apps. Finally, this is all volunteer work on people's weekends and producing detailed technical arguments about each of these topics is incredibly time-consuming. Should be lots of updates to the website over the next few weeks, lots of people have volunteered, the web community is amazing.
    - dmitriid 5y ago
      > We're happy to target anti-competitive behaviour from any operating system or browser if it relates to the open-web. Currently our main focus is user's browser choice It means you're not really focusing on the open web. You have a very specific, very narrow beef that you're pursuing. And it's parroting Chrome's propaganda basically word-for-word both on the website and here in the comments. > they have to be well understood and documented. If you're willing to type this up in detail... In Discord, right? You could start by actually looking around and figuring out these things yourself, too. Not just repeating Google's talking points. Good starting point: https://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2021/08/breaking_the_we.html https://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2021/08/breaking_th... Or maybe look at the status of the APIs you so ardently defend. Example, WebHID timeline: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/459#issuecomment-886271967 https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/459#is... etc. > It's also really important to be specific as to why the behaviour is harmful to end consumers. We also need to order the issues in terms of priority and how damaging they are to the wider ecosystem. You've already stated your priorities loud and clear > and respecting a user's browser choice via Android or Google apps. Yup, it's s good one. Since Google doesn't respect that and ignores all/most input on the non-standards it's pushing out at neck-breaking speed, you can see where it's going if you "allow browser choice on iOS"
      - mtomweb 5y ago
        If you want document this and contribute to the group, please do. Our group is volunteer only and so we can only focus on issues that are contributed. We have a GitHub for more formal conversations and discord for chat. We will tackle the major issues relating to browsers and web-apps that the vendors aren’t addressing. Wanting Web Apps to work is not a narrow focus.
Kibranoz 5y ago
As much as I love the web I feel like there may be some problems. What would entail to allowing anything run on the web? Bluetooth, hardware, movement tracking api (creepy!!) are causing legitimate concerns. The web was meant to be an information sharing platform. To share information means that there was standards to be built. From these standards, came the possibility to make things that works everywhere, which explains the popularity of web apps. It may be tempting to push for more support in web standards, however the nature of the web platform give it vulnerabilities that wouldn’t exist in a native app. A native app is a piece of code. You can analyse it through antivirus, and the executable stay the same unless you choose to update it. (Electron apps allow app maker to update automatically, but they are not native apps, the chrome browser embedded is native but the only website it can access is not). A web app use multiple devices and is more uncertain. Service workers fetch information from a website and on a remote server, and that code would arrive on your computer without you actually consenting or realizing it. What if my website get attacked and suddenly my web app is loading a Bluetooth api that could access a connected object, like my smart car, my health device or other potentially dangerous stuff? Moreover, allowing alternative browser would allow developers to be less constrained by Apple, for the better, indeed, but also for the worst. If chrome decide to bring their chromium browser to iOS, Facebook could just delete it’s iOS app and put it as a chrome PWA, this would allow them to bypass the Apple Store restrictions.
rooshdi 5y ago
What if there's an other opening .......
______-_-______ 5y ago
A few years ago, including a browser with your OS was an antitrust violation. What happened?
- recursive 5y ago
  I could be wrong, but I think that was only if you were a monopolist.
  - throwaway821909 5y ago
    Microsoft are somehow getting away all sorts of dark patterns pushing Edge, on top of it being included, default, and hardcoded for some links from system apps.
- rodgerd 5y ago
  Monopolies are good if they're Google's, apparently.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    Are you suggesting that ChromeOS is in a monopoly position of any fashion? That seems to stretch any definition of monopoly I can think of.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - petmon 5y ago
      The MS antitrust ruling was that MS can license Windows to Dell, but Dell ultimately gets to configure the OS for their own customers, including replacing the web browser. This doesn't apply easily to Apple who does not license their OS: Apple is both MS and Dell in this analogy. It applies to Google through Android. Amazon sells a Fire TV, which uses AOSP; but now Google's licensing forbids Amazon from also offering an Android TV product. Perhaps Apple should face antitrust action, perhaps not, but the MS ruling doesn't really apply as Apple does not license their software. The ruling was meant to empower OEMs and Apple IS the OEM.
dimensi0nal 5y ago
hot take: the safari monopoly on ios is better than a chromium monopoly on all platforms
- AlexandrB 5y ago
  Sadly, I agree. Allowing alternate browsers on iOS just means more market share for Chrom(ium).
- FridgeSeal 5y ago
  Strong agree. “Look at all these alternative browsers you can use” > points to Chromium variants. Chromium variants are not an alternative, and I’m happy to perpetuate Safari on iOS if it means Apple keeps shafting ad-tech companies in service of my privacy.
  - Jensson 5y ago
    Apple is an ad-tech company, they are expanding that sector massively lately. Ads might be less revenue, but ads are almost pure profits so each ad dollar is worth much more to them than each phone dollar, and there is no reason they can't do both. > Analysts project Apple will make $5B off ads this year and $20B per year by 2024 https://thehustle.co/10202021-apple-advertising/ https://thehustle.co/10202021-apple-advertising/
    - dmitriid 5y ago
      You can't call something "an ad tech company" if the entire ad revenue is less than 3% of the company's revenue. On the other hand 80% of Google's revenue comes from online ads.
- izacus 5y ago
  Safari is crippled when it comes to building web apps that aren't beholden to the Apple tax and control. How the fsck is that better than having a single web engine that makes web apps equals among native apps and avoids monopolistic american megacorp from telling you what you're allowed to create? Do you really wish corporate control so much? Do you want to go through Apple review for your websites as well? It's incredible how brand fanboyism clouds your minds - this isn't about engine competition, it's about making free web an equal player to golden cages of app stores.
micromacrofoot 5y ago
I'd be happy with basic PWA support, it's taken years.
- petmon 5y ago
  But iOS has supported basic PWAs for years.
Shadonototra 5y ago
Web devs? Who exactly? they just created 6 tweets in 1 hour and now they are "web devs"? they shounds like PR people, probably mozilla? This is fishy af
- FridgeSeal 5y ago
  Mozilla doesn’t seem like it’d resort to tactics like this.
- ocdtrekkie 5y ago
  This site screams Google astroturfing at every angle. I would be shook if Googlers have no hand in it. EDIT: The Register lists two specific developers who I don't think work at Google "plus others" so if it's Google they have gotten better at astroturfing since the Open Handset Alliance days of yore. It looks like they're lobbying the UK, and I don't think Google admits which lobbyists they pay outside of the US.
  - mtomweb 5y ago
    We’re just web developers, not affiliated with or funded by any major company. In fact Google pays Apple 15b usd a year for search engine placement on iOS which is presumably why they haven’t been fighting it. It’s been a huge amount of unpaid work, but the entire industry had been held back for so long we felt we had to do something.
    - petmon 5y ago
      Are you affiliated with this site? If so, please make a post introducing yourself.
      - mtomweb 5y ago
        Hi! I’m @mtomweb on Twitter. I and everyone one else doesn’t work or get paid by any of the browser vendors (or anyone else for that matter). I run a small business doing POS systems that’d you’d have never heard off. People just assume that we’re funded because we’ve stuck a lot of effort in trying to fight anticompetitive behavior. If you read our content though you’ll see it’s not legal/PR nonsense. Available on Twitter or discord for chat anytime!
jchw 5y ago
This is easily my top complaint about iOS. It would be much less of a complaint if Apple would make use of the shiny silicon they added to their ARM chips and properly support VP8/9, Opus, WebM, etc. so that there are patent unencumbered codecs and formats that work across every browser. Literally only one major player is lagging here.
- danhab99 5y ago
  I didn't even know safari can't do webm. I wonder what else safari and WebKit can't do?
  - frizlab 5y ago
    Webm is supported on Safari/Webkit AFAIK (on iOS the audio codec is supported, not sure about the video one) https://webkit.org/blog/11648/new-webkit-features-in-safari-14-1/ https://webkit.org/blog/11648/new-webkit-features-in-safari-...
    - smoldesu 5y ago
      I don't think the entire codec is supported, either. Last I checked, it's still missing features like WEBM alpha layers.
    - jchw 5y ago
      Safari and Webkit definitely support WebM, but it’s disabled on iOS, making it a bit useless. Of course, it’s enabled on macOS, where Apple has to compete with other browser vendors. This leads me to believe the parent article is on the right track. I’ve heard Opus is supported, but not in Mkv (WebM) or Vorbis containers, making it a bit pointless.
      - jchw 5y ago
        Gah, I just reread this and realized the funny mistake I made: Ogg* containers. Not Vorbis. In case anyone is still reading this comment a day later.
  - 5y ago
searchableguy 5y ago
You can write to https://www.cci.gov.in/feedback https://www.cci.gov.in/feedback if you are in India.
vincentmarle 5y ago
Not sure if I understand the issue (or it’s just been poorly explained): last time I checked I can still install alternative browsers like Chrome and Firefox. And I can still save web apps as “bookmarked app icons”.
- paulryanrogers 5y ago
  They're crippled by Safari's WebKit, not truly independent.
- mysterydip 5y ago
  my understanding is all other browsers on ios are just safari rendering wrappers with various skins, menu bars, and addons
- relyks 5y ago
  All browsers on iOS use Apple's WebKit browsing engine. Even alternative browsers like Chrome and Firefox on iOS are using WebKit instead of their own corresponding engines that are used on other platforms like desktop and Android
  - saurik 5y ago
    This is a point so horribly misunderstood that I seriously had dinner a few weeks ago with someone from the Mozilla Foundation who asked me the same question as they somehow didn't understand that Firefox Focus wasn't actually Firefox. It was in that moment I realized that we're doomed: Apple has managed to control the narrative here so ridiculously well by making it seem like alternative browsers exist, even when they don't, that more time has to now be spent continually re-educating people about what a browser even is than explaining why alternative browsers are important :(.
- aluminum96 5y ago
  In addition to being crippled under the hood, as other comments have pointed out, the alternative browsers cannot offer any extra features. Want WebMIDI? Want push notifications? Sorry, you can't have that on iOS, not with any browser.
schappim 5y ago
If you're in Australia, the ACCC is asking that you share your experience with either the Apple or Google market places via email[1]: digitalmonitoring@accc.gov.au This is part of the ACCC's 5-year ongoing inquiry in Digital Platform Services. [1] https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/inquiries-ongoing/digital-platform-services-inquiry-2020-2025 https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/inquiries-ongoing/digita...
neither_color 5y ago
At the very least if they want to ease into it they could start with opening up browsers for the iPad Pro. I'm one of those people who tries to replace his laptop with an ipad every few months and would greatly benefit from being able to run a full desktop browser with developer tools. I dont even need chrome just Chromium would help. iPad OS get incrementally better every year but it's years away from doing what it's capable of.
- aluminum96 5y ago
  Even if iPad Safari had dev tools, you really want to be able to test against chromium. If they ever get serious about the iPad developer market, they're going to have to relax many constraints, including this one (as well as the no-JIT compilation rule, probably).
1nverseMtx 5y ago
The last thing I want is a webpage being able to access bluetooth, notifications or any sensor data. No, more permission dialogs is also not what I want.
- xwdv 5y ago
  As a dev it’s one of the first things I want. Would really allow for interesting applications.
- desikoder 5y ago
  > The last thing I want is a webpage being able to access bluetooth, notifications or any sensor data. No, more permission dialogs is also not what I want. And how is having the same developer do it via a native application any different? Permission controls for browser can be managed the same way they are being managed for native apps. In fact, once a web app is allowed to register itself as an app, you will be able to centrally view permissions from your existing permission manager settings in your respective operating system.
  - merlinscholz 5y ago
    I get your point, but in my experience it is more common to land on a website with a malicious ad than intentionally download an untrusted app.
    - mpalmer 5y ago
      I don't think they're advocating that any random page you happen to land on has the capability or permissions of an app. I think they're saying that the web app experience should be more aligned and integrated with the native app experience, including installation and granting of permissions.
      - mtomweb 5y ago
        Privacy is worse on native, and we shouldn’t copy that. If others read the section on Bluetooth it outlines how poor native protections are. Full integration of web app settings into the OS is essential for users to be able to control their privacy.
KerrAvon 5y ago
Where are the end users who are begging for more shitty web apps and a less secure computing experience?
- aluminum96 5y ago
  > a less secure computing experience Citation needed. The web sandbox in most browsers is head-and-shoulders more secure than executing arbitrary native code. Perhaps you meant "private." It's true that the web has developed something of a fingerprinting problem, but this can be solved with finer-grained capabilities-based permissions, as well as privacy-conscious implementations (e.g. bucketing).
chkhd 5y ago
> The entire future of Application Development is at stake. Since when does application development equal web application development? this is a narrow-minded view. > stalled innovation for the past 10 years and prevented Web Apps from taking off on mobile. I may be in the minority but, as a user, web apps on mobile is the last thing I need. Also, as a developer web apps as a preferred way of developing for mobile is the last things I need. > Web Apps if allowed can offer equivalent functionality with greater privacy and security for demanding use-cases. This really needs some sources. To me, it reads like something akin to a snake oil ad piece right now.
- candiddevmike 5y ago
  > I may be in the minority but, as a user, web apps on mobile is the last thing I need. Also, as a developer web apps as a preferred way of developing for mobile is the last things I need. I would bet in the future most apps are web apps, either JavaScript PWAs or WASM. The economics of cross platform development are too great. I think most users won't care, or may even appreciate this due to the size savings (a PWA today is almost always a lot smaller than a fat app on my experience). As a developer, I would rather write web apps that can use standard web interfaces for camera/files/icons/notifications than having to learn all of the platform specific stuff, and as a bonus I'll get a lot of accessibility benefits for free.
  - chkhd 5y ago
    > I would bet.. That is speculation on user behalf, isn't it? I am a user and I care. > ..than having to learn all of the platform specific stuff.. It is a rational argument. However, Chrome is a platform too. More and more of the web only works (well) in Chrome. More and more of the web is what Chrome says it is.
    - go_prodev 5y ago
      > I am a user and I care. You care how an app is developed and delivered to your device? The web offers a native experience in most cases, sometimes even better. Besides, giving PWAs more abilities doesn't remove native apps. > More and more of the web is what Chrome says it is. It's pretty ironic that you support Apple in locking down what you can do and apps you can run and what Safari supports, while blaming Chrome for being the dominant browser.
aluminum96 5y ago
Apple has almost single-handedly held back the dream of native-quality experiences on the web. Want service workers to perform background sync? Want push notifications? Sorry, you're out of luck on iOS. It's a blatantly protectionist policy to make devs provide App Store apps, and it's harming the entire web platform.
- 30367286 5y ago
  >Want service workers to perform background sync? Want push notifications? No. Not even a little. I don't want these for my native apps. I turn them off for everything.
  - aluminum96 5y ago
    Fair enough, but for some categories of apps (e.g. messengers), most people find them indispensable.
    - octoberfranklin 5y ago
      The problem is the "we must never break the web" attitude. Once any feature, no matter how exotic, becomes part of "the web" it can never be removed from browsers ever, for the rest of time. Either that policy must change, or we must be ultraconservative about accepting new "web standards". One or the other. Either choice has disadvantages, but we cannot choose neither.
      - aaomidi 5y ago
        You can turn off service workers and still access the website. Heck you can turn off Javascript and still make a ton of the web work. Did adding location access, or Bluetooth access break the web for you?
        JimDabell 5y ago
        Bluetooth access was never added to the web. It’s not on the standards track, it’s only implemented in Blink, and both Mozilla and Apple have refused to implement it. The web isn’t simply whatever Google decides to add to Chrome.
stupidfuckers 5y ago
I hate Safari because it holds me back from doing all kinds of stuff like importing css files with import statements, making web component-based forms work the same as standard forms, etc, etc.
shmerl 5y ago
Very long overdue issue which would have been a non issue if competition law would have actually worked instead of being so toothless. Not sure if telling legislators about it will make it any better. They'll say competition laws already exist. It's enforcing them that's a problem. May be someone should team up with EFF and file a major anti-trust case against Apple.
logicalmonster 5y ago
The only company mentioned by name in your priorities is Apple. Your comments about Apple are valid of course, but to convey more credibility and eliminate accusations of astroturfing, you probably should list some issues with all of the big players. I’m sure you can find many issues with Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, and others.
Aaronn 5y ago
Advocates for openness and yet uses Discord to communicate. Ugh.
- mtomweb 5y ago
  We tested a bunch of different platform, discord just seemed easiest. We will be setting up our GitHub account to allow contributions if thats better.
ogazitt 5y ago
It would kind of be nice to understand who is behind this. Where's the repo where the website is built from? Who are the devs in the organization? Otherwise, it just feels like an advocacy site for a large company that is not Apple.
- agust 5y ago
  Names and clarification have been added to the website: https://open-web-advocacy.org/#really https://open-web-advocacy.org/#really
- mtomweb 5y ago
  We’re just a group of various web developers, unpaid, unfunded and not backed by any organization. The repo is on GitHub (currently private) but we will be making it public. We’re all in the discord group at the moment if your interested in helping.
mnot 5y ago
This smells funny. It doesn't list any names, at all, and it only focuses on one issue -- Apple's browser restriction, which as others point out is a nuanced issue.
- agust 5y ago
  Names were just added to the website to clear things up: https://open-web-advocacy.org/#really https://open-web-advocacy.org/#really
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
e-dant 5y ago
I have had plenty of problems making cross platform apps — and that’s my specialty and my niche, I do it every day. Not just cross platform, but across embedded devices, browsers, servers; truly cross platform. I have, instead, found the platforms most difficult to work with are 1. android for its heavy reliance on Java (which is not an appropriate language on plenty of embedded systems and on systems where efficiency means money), 2. windows for its poor system api and heavily restrictive marketplace, and 3. Apple for its heavily restrictive marketplace. Note, though, that none of this has to do with the web and web-like technologies. There is nothing stopping React or similar App frameworks from being deployed on mobile devices. And, for the record, there is legal precedent for app lockdowns like these. We don’t need more laws — we need to enforce the precedent we already have. Find a lawyer who can be convinced that Windows DirectX and ie are illegal tying arrangements… find a lawyer that could be convinced of the difference between Metal and OpenCL+OpenGL. That’s why we have these problems; it’s a lack of understanding from the departments responsible for prosecuting these illegal tying arrangements.

158 points by stack_framer 5y ago

Hi, I’m Matthew Thomas. I set up the open-web-advocacy.org and am the primary author of the document. We don’t want this to be about personalities and want to focus on the problems at hand. Happy to answer questions and I hope some of you will join us in advocating a better future for the web.

dmitriid 5y ago
> Happy to answer questions and I hope some of you will join us in advocating a better future for the web If you actually advocate for open web, where's Chrome on your website? Chrome routinely releases its own internal APIs disguised as specs, calls them standards, ignores any and all concerns from both Safari and Firefox, and then proceeds to gaslight those two browser for not kowtowing themselves before Google's whims.
- mtomweb 5y ago
  We're happy to target anti-competitive behaviour from any operating system or browser if it relates to the open-web. Currently our main focus is user's browser choice on all operating systems is possible and respected to restore the competitive pressures that push everything forward. That said we want to make list of other things to target and fix, but they have to be well understood and documented. If you're willing to type this up in detail... which APIs, what the issues are, comments from the various browser teams involved and why they came to that conclusion (and it's really important to talk to the individuals that were actually involved in whatever spec you were talking about) and then post in the discord, I'm sure folks would be interested. It's also really important to be specific as to why the behaviour is harmful to end consumers. We also need to order the issues in terms of priority and how damaging they are to the wider ecosystem. Some issues with Google include equal WebAPK minting system on Android, and respecting a user's browser choice via Android or Google apps. Finally, this is all volunteer work on people's weekends and producing detailed technical arguments about each of these topics is incredibly time-consuming. Should be lots of updates to the website over the next few weeks, lots of people have volunteered, the web community is amazing.
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    > We're happy to target anti-competitive behaviour from any operating system or browser if it relates to the open-web. Currently our main focus is user's browser choice It means you're not really focusing on the open web. You have a very specific, very narrow beef that you're pursuing. And it's parroting Chrome's propaganda basically word-for-word both on the website and here in the comments. > they have to be well understood and documented. If you're willing to type this up in detail... In Discord, right? You could start by actually looking around and figuring out these things yourself, too. Not just repeating Google's talking points. Good starting point: https://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2021/08/breaking_the_we.html https://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2021/08/breaking_th... Or maybe look at the status of the APIs you so ardently defend. Example, WebHID timeline: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/459#issuecomment-886271967 https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/459#is... etc. > It's also really important to be specific as to why the behaviour is harmful to end consumers. We also need to order the issues in terms of priority and how damaging they are to the wider ecosystem. You've already stated your priorities loud and clear > and respecting a user's browser choice via Android or Google apps. Yup, it's s good one. Since Google doesn't respect that and ignores all/most input on the non-standards it's pushing out at neck-breaking speed, you can see where it's going if you "allow browser choice on iOS"
    - mtomweb 5y ago
      If you want document this and contribute to the group, please do. Our group is volunteer only and so we can only focus on issues that are contributed. We have a GitHub for more formal conversations and discord for chat. We will tackle the major issues relating to browsers and web-apps that the vendors aren’t addressing. Wanting Web Apps to work is not a narrow focus.

Kibranoz 5y ago

As much as I love the web I feel like there may be some problems. What would entail to allowing anything run on the web? Bluetooth, hardware, movement tracking api (creepy!!) are causing legitimate concerns. The web was meant to be an information sharing platform. To share information means that there was standards to be built. From these standards, came the possibility to make things that works everywhere, which explains the popularity of web apps. It may be tempting to push for more support in web standards, however the nature of the web platform give it vulnerabilities that wouldn’t exist in a native app. A native app is a piece of code. You can analyse it through antivirus, and the executable stay the same unless you choose to update it. (Electron apps allow app maker to update automatically, but they are not native apps, the chrome browser embedded is native but the only website it can access is not). A web app use multiple devices and is more uncertain. Service workers fetch information from a website and on a remote server, and that code would arrive on your computer without you actually consenting or realizing it. What if my website get attacked and suddenly my web app is loading a Bluetooth api that could access a connected object, like my smart car, my health device or other potentially dangerous stuff? Moreover, allowing alternative browser would allow developers to be less constrained by Apple, for the better, indeed, but also for the worst. If chrome decide to bring their chromium browser to iOS, Facebook could just delete it’s iOS app and put it as a chrome PWA, this would allow them to bypass the Apple Store restrictions.

rooshdi 5y ago

What if there's an other opening .......

______-_-______ 5y ago

A few years ago, including a browser with your OS was an antitrust violation. What happened?

recursive 5y ago
I could be wrong, but I think that was only if you were a monopolist.
- throwaway821909 5y ago
  Microsoft are somehow getting away all sorts of dark patterns pushing Edge, on top of it being included, default, and hardcoded for some links from system apps.
rodgerd 5y ago
Monopolies are good if they're Google's, apparently.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  Are you suggesting that ChromeOS is in a monopoly position of any fashion? That seems to stretch any definition of monopoly I can think of.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - petmon 5y ago
    The MS antitrust ruling was that MS can license Windows to Dell, but Dell ultimately gets to configure the OS for their own customers, including replacing the web browser. This doesn't apply easily to Apple who does not license their OS: Apple is both MS and Dell in this analogy. It applies to Google through Android. Amazon sells a Fire TV, which uses AOSP; but now Google's licensing forbids Amazon from also offering an Android TV product. Perhaps Apple should face antitrust action, perhaps not, but the MS ruling doesn't really apply as Apple does not license their software. The ruling was meant to empower OEMs and Apple IS the OEM.

dimensi0nal 5y ago

hot take: the safari monopoly on ios is better than a chromium monopoly on all platforms

AlexandrB 5y ago
Sadly, I agree. Allowing alternate browsers on iOS just means more market share for Chrom(ium).
FridgeSeal 5y ago
Strong agree. “Look at all these alternative browsers you can use” > points to Chromium variants. Chromium variants are not an alternative, and I’m happy to perpetuate Safari on iOS if it means Apple keeps shafting ad-tech companies in service of my privacy.
- Jensson 5y ago
  Apple is an ad-tech company, they are expanding that sector massively lately. Ads might be less revenue, but ads are almost pure profits so each ad dollar is worth much more to them than each phone dollar, and there is no reason they can't do both. > Analysts project Apple will make $5B off ads this year and $20B per year by 2024 https://thehustle.co/10202021-apple-advertising/ https://thehustle.co/10202021-apple-advertising/
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    You can't call something "an ad tech company" if the entire ad revenue is less than 3% of the company's revenue. On the other hand 80% of Google's revenue comes from online ads.
izacus 5y ago
Safari is crippled when it comes to building web apps that aren't beholden to the Apple tax and control. How the fsck is that better than having a single web engine that makes web apps equals among native apps and avoids monopolistic american megacorp from telling you what you're allowed to create? Do you really wish corporate control so much? Do you want to go through Apple review for your websites as well? It's incredible how brand fanboyism clouds your minds - this isn't about engine competition, it's about making free web an equal player to golden cages of app stores.

micromacrofoot 5y ago

I'd be happy with basic PWA support, it's taken years.

petmon 5y ago
But iOS has supported basic PWAs for years.

Shadonototra 5y ago

Web devs? Who exactly? they just created 6 tweets in 1 hour and now they are "web devs"? they shounds like PR people, probably mozilla? This is fishy af

FridgeSeal 5y ago
Mozilla doesn’t seem like it’d resort to tactics like this.
ocdtrekkie 5y ago
This site screams Google astroturfing at every angle. I would be shook if Googlers have no hand in it. EDIT: The Register lists two specific developers who I don't think work at Google "plus others" so if it's Google they have gotten better at astroturfing since the Open Handset Alliance days of yore. It looks like they're lobbying the UK, and I don't think Google admits which lobbyists they pay outside of the US.
- mtomweb 5y ago
  We’re just web developers, not affiliated with or funded by any major company. In fact Google pays Apple 15b usd a year for search engine placement on iOS which is presumably why they haven’t been fighting it. It’s been a huge amount of unpaid work, but the entire industry had been held back for so long we felt we had to do something.
  - petmon 5y ago
    Are you affiliated with this site? If so, please make a post introducing yourself.
    - mtomweb 5y ago
      Hi! I’m @mtomweb on Twitter. I and everyone one else doesn’t work or get paid by any of the browser vendors (or anyone else for that matter). I run a small business doing POS systems that’d you’d have never heard off. People just assume that we’re funded because we’ve stuck a lot of effort in trying to fight anticompetitive behavior. If you read our content though you’ll see it’s not legal/PR nonsense. Available on Twitter or discord for chat anytime!

jchw 5y ago

This is easily my top complaint about iOS. It would be much less of a complaint if Apple would make use of the shiny silicon they added to their ARM chips and properly support VP8/9, Opus, WebM, etc. so that there are patent unencumbered codecs and formats that work across every browser. Literally only one major player is lagging here.

danhab99 5y ago
I didn't even know safari can't do webm. I wonder what else safari and WebKit can't do?
- frizlab 5y ago
  Webm is supported on Safari/Webkit AFAIK (on iOS the audio codec is supported, not sure about the video one) https://webkit.org/blog/11648/new-webkit-features-in-safari-14-1/ https://webkit.org/blog/11648/new-webkit-features-in-safari-...
  - smoldesu 5y ago
    I don't think the entire codec is supported, either. Last I checked, it's still missing features like WEBM alpha layers.
  - jchw 5y ago
    Safari and Webkit definitely support WebM, but it’s disabled on iOS, making it a bit useless. Of course, it’s enabled on macOS, where Apple has to compete with other browser vendors. This leads me to believe the parent article is on the right track. I’ve heard Opus is supported, but not in Mkv (WebM) or Vorbis containers, making it a bit pointless.
    - jchw 5y ago
      Gah, I just reread this and realized the funny mistake I made: Ogg* containers. Not Vorbis. In case anyone is still reading this comment a day later.
- 5y ago

searchableguy 5y ago

You can write to https://www.cci.gov.in/feedback https://www.cci.gov.in/feedback if you are in India.

vincentmarle 5y ago

Not sure if I understand the issue (or it’s just been poorly explained): last time I checked I can still install alternative browsers like Chrome and Firefox. And I can still save web apps as “bookmarked app icons”.

paulryanrogers 5y ago
They're crippled by Safari's WebKit, not truly independent.
mysterydip 5y ago
my understanding is all other browsers on ios are just safari rendering wrappers with various skins, menu bars, and addons
relyks 5y ago
All browsers on iOS use Apple's WebKit browsing engine. Even alternative browsers like Chrome and Firefox on iOS are using WebKit instead of their own corresponding engines that are used on other platforms like desktop and Android
- saurik 5y ago
  This is a point so horribly misunderstood that I seriously had dinner a few weeks ago with someone from the Mozilla Foundation who asked me the same question as they somehow didn't understand that Firefox Focus wasn't actually Firefox. It was in that moment I realized that we're doomed: Apple has managed to control the narrative here so ridiculously well by making it seem like alternative browsers exist, even when they don't, that more time has to now be spent continually re-educating people about what a browser even is than explaining why alternative browsers are important :(.
aluminum96 5y ago
In addition to being crippled under the hood, as other comments have pointed out, the alternative browsers cannot offer any extra features. Want WebMIDI? Want push notifications? Sorry, you can't have that on iOS, not with any browser.

schappim 5y ago

If you're in Australia, the ACCC is asking that you share your experience with either the Apple or Google market places via email[1]: digitalmonitoring@accc.gov.au This is part of the ACCC's 5-year ongoing inquiry in Digital Platform Services. [1] https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/inquiries-ongoing/digital-platform-services-inquiry-2020-2025 https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/inquiries-ongoing/digita...

neither_color 5y ago

At the very least if they want to ease into it they could start with opening up browsers for the iPad Pro. I'm one of those people who tries to replace his laptop with an ipad every few months and would greatly benefit from being able to run a full desktop browser with developer tools. I dont even need chrome just Chromium would help. iPad OS get incrementally better every year but it's years away from doing what it's capable of.

aluminum96 5y ago
Even if iPad Safari had dev tools, you really want to be able to test against chromium. If they ever get serious about the iPad developer market, they're going to have to relax many constraints, including this one (as well as the no-JIT compilation rule, probably).

1nverseMtx 5y ago

The last thing I want is a webpage being able to access bluetooth, notifications or any sensor data. No, more permission dialogs is also not what I want.

xwdv 5y ago
As a dev it’s one of the first things I want. Would really allow for interesting applications.
desikoder 5y ago
> The last thing I want is a webpage being able to access bluetooth, notifications or any sensor data. No, more permission dialogs is also not what I want. And how is having the same developer do it via a native application any different? Permission controls for browser can be managed the same way they are being managed for native apps. In fact, once a web app is allowed to register itself as an app, you will be able to centrally view permissions from your existing permission manager settings in your respective operating system.
- merlinscholz 5y ago
  I get your point, but in my experience it is more common to land on a website with a malicious ad than intentionally download an untrusted app.
  - mpalmer 5y ago
    I don't think they're advocating that any random page you happen to land on has the capability or permissions of an app. I think they're saying that the web app experience should be more aligned and integrated with the native app experience, including installation and granting of permissions.
    - mtomweb 5y ago
      Privacy is worse on native, and we shouldn’t copy that. If others read the section on Bluetooth it outlines how poor native protections are. Full integration of web app settings into the OS is essential for users to be able to control their privacy.

KerrAvon 5y ago

Where are the end users who are begging for more shitty web apps and a less secure computing experience?

aluminum96 5y ago
> a less secure computing experience Citation needed. The web sandbox in most browsers is head-and-shoulders more secure than executing arbitrary native code. Perhaps you meant "private." It's true that the web has developed something of a fingerprinting problem, but this can be solved with finer-grained capabilities-based permissions, as well as privacy-conscious implementations (e.g. bucketing).

chkhd 5y ago

> The entire future of Application Development is at stake. Since when does application development equal web application development? this is a narrow-minded view. > stalled innovation for the past 10 years and prevented Web Apps from taking off on mobile. I may be in the minority but, as a user, web apps on mobile is the last thing I need. Also, as a developer web apps as a preferred way of developing for mobile is the last things I need. > Web Apps if allowed can offer equivalent functionality with greater privacy and security for demanding use-cases. This really needs some sources. To me, it reads like something akin to a snake oil ad piece right now.

candiddevmike 5y ago
> I may be in the minority but, as a user, web apps on mobile is the last thing I need. Also, as a developer web apps as a preferred way of developing for mobile is the last things I need. I would bet in the future most apps are web apps, either JavaScript PWAs or WASM. The economics of cross platform development are too great. I think most users won't care, or may even appreciate this due to the size savings (a PWA today is almost always a lot smaller than a fat app on my experience). As a developer, I would rather write web apps that can use standard web interfaces for camera/files/icons/notifications than having to learn all of the platform specific stuff, and as a bonus I'll get a lot of accessibility benefits for free.
- chkhd 5y ago
  > I would bet.. That is speculation on user behalf, isn't it? I am a user and I care. > ..than having to learn all of the platform specific stuff.. It is a rational argument. However, Chrome is a platform too. More and more of the web only works (well) in Chrome. More and more of the web is what Chrome says it is.
  - go_prodev 5y ago
    > I am a user and I care. You care how an app is developed and delivered to your device? The web offers a native experience in most cases, sometimes even better. Besides, giving PWAs more abilities doesn't remove native apps. > More and more of the web is what Chrome says it is. It's pretty ironic that you support Apple in locking down what you can do and apps you can run and what Safari supports, while blaming Chrome for being the dominant browser.

aluminum96 5y ago

Apple has almost single-handedly held back the dream of native-quality experiences on the web. Want service workers to perform background sync? Want push notifications? Sorry, you're out of luck on iOS. It's a blatantly protectionist policy to make devs provide App Store apps, and it's harming the entire web platform.

30367286 5y ago
>Want service workers to perform background sync? Want push notifications? No. Not even a little. I don't want these for my native apps. I turn them off for everything.
- aluminum96 5y ago
  Fair enough, but for some categories of apps (e.g. messengers), most people find them indispensable.
  - octoberfranklin 5y ago
    The problem is the "we must never break the web" attitude. Once any feature, no matter how exotic, becomes part of "the web" it can never be removed from browsers ever, for the rest of time. Either that policy must change, or we must be ultraconservative about accepting new "web standards". One or the other. Either choice has disadvantages, but we cannot choose neither.
    - aaomidi 5y ago
      You can turn off service workers and still access the website. Heck you can turn off Javascript and still make a ton of the web work. Did adding location access, or Bluetooth access break the web for you?
      - JimDabell 5y ago
        Bluetooth access was never added to the web. It’s not on the standards track, it’s only implemented in Blink, and both Mozilla and Apple have refused to implement it. The web isn’t simply whatever Google decides to add to Chrome.

stupidfuckers 5y ago

I hate Safari because it holds me back from doing all kinds of stuff like importing css files with import statements, making web component-based forms work the same as standard forms, etc, etc.

shmerl 5y ago

Very long overdue issue which would have been a non issue if competition law would have actually worked instead of being so toothless. Not sure if telling legislators about it will make it any better. They'll say competition laws already exist. It's enforcing them that's a problem. May be someone should team up with EFF and file a major anti-trust case against Apple.

logicalmonster 5y ago

The only company mentioned by name in your priorities is Apple. Your comments about Apple are valid of course, but to convey more credibility and eliminate accusations of astroturfing, you probably should list some issues with all of the big players. I’m sure you can find many issues with Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, and others.

Aaronn 5y ago

Advocates for openness and yet uses Discord to communicate. Ugh.

mtomweb 5y ago
We tested a bunch of different platform, discord just seemed easiest. We will be setting up our GitHub account to allow contributions if thats better.

ogazitt 5y ago

It would kind of be nice to understand who is behind this. Where's the repo where the website is built from? Who are the devs in the organization? Otherwise, it just feels like an advocacy site for a large company that is not Apple.

agust 5y ago
Names and clarification have been added to the website: https://open-web-advocacy.org/#really https://open-web-advocacy.org/#really
mtomweb 5y ago
We’re just a group of various web developers, unpaid, unfunded and not backed by any organization. The repo is on GitHub (currently private) but we will be making it public. We’re all in the discord group at the moment if your interested in helping.

mnot 5y ago

This smells funny. It doesn't list any names, at all, and it only focuses on one issue -- Apple's browser restriction, which as others point out is a nuanced issue.

agust 5y ago
Names were just added to the website to clear things up: https://open-web-advocacy.org/#really https://open-web-advocacy.org/#really

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

e-dant 5y ago

I have had plenty of problems making cross platform apps — and that’s my specialty and my niche, I do it every day. Not just cross platform, but across embedded devices, browsers, servers; truly cross platform. I have, instead, found the platforms most difficult to work with are 1. android for its heavy reliance on Java (which is not an appropriate language on plenty of embedded systems and on systems where efficiency means money), 2. windows for its poor system api and heavily restrictive marketplace, and 3. Apple for its heavily restrictive marketplace. Note, though, that none of this has to do with the web and web-like technologies. There is nothing stopping React or similar App frameworks from being deployed on mobile devices. And, for the record, there is legal precedent for app lockdowns like these. We don’t need more laws — we need to enforce the precedent we already have. Find a lawyer who can be convinced that Windows DirectX and ie are illegal tying arrangements… find a lawyer that could be convinced of the difference between Metal and OpenCL+OpenGL. That’s why we have these problems; it’s a lack of understanding from the departments responsible for prosecuting these illegal tying arrangements.