3 ms·

I'm well aware of your long held opinions but really we are advocating on behalf of people who believe the web is the future. Additionally we believe in compet

I'm well aware of your long held opinions but really we are advocating on behalf of people who believe the web is the future. Additionally we believe in competition and browser choice. There will always be others who think that other platforms are a better option, but as long as there is open competition, the best platform will win. Our aim is to remove barriers and we will fight any anti-competitive behaviour by any operating system or browser vendor but in a priority order.

ocdtrekkie 5y ago
I believe in competition and browser choice. But if your position was to win, we would immediately have neither. You are advocating solely for Chrome, whether you understand why and how or not. Priorities are great to have, but yours are wrong and harmful. If you win, we all lose, and I fear you will come to understand it too late.
- mtomweb 5y ago
  I'm not advocating solely for chrome. Safari/webkit was severely underfunded and neglected by Apple and was slipping further behind every year in addition to being unsuitable / unstable as an application platform. By restoring competition to iOS it will push Apple to fund them properly or they risk losing 150m for each 1% of users per year that move to another browser. Safari only competes on one platform and that is MacOS. If you read through our regulatory submission at https://open-web-advocacy.org/#where https://open-web-advocacy.org/#where we run through this argument in detail. It should also be important to note that blink is a fork of webkit which is a fork of khtml. There is nothing stoping competition within the chromium browsers as outlined in section 8 of the document. We want Safari/webkit to succeed.
  - ocdtrekkie 5y ago
    Choosing not to implement insecure and poorly thought out features isn't "underfunding" or "neglecting" Safari. It's a choice to put users, not Google, first. Google has used a litany of underhanded tactics to obliterate every single browser in an open space. Claiming opening up iOS to competing browsers would be helping Safari succeed is just ignoring history.

ocdtrekkie 5y ago

I believe in competition and browser choice. But if your position was to win, we would immediately have neither. You are advocating solely for Chrome, whether you understand why and how or not. Priorities are great to have, but yours are wrong and harmful. If you win, we all lose, and I fear you will come to understand it too late.

mtomweb 5y ago
I'm not advocating solely for chrome. Safari/webkit was severely underfunded and neglected by Apple and was slipping further behind every year in addition to being unsuitable / unstable as an application platform. By restoring competition to iOS it will push Apple to fund them properly or they risk losing 150m for each 1% of users per year that move to another browser. Safari only competes on one platform and that is MacOS. If you read through our regulatory submission at https://open-web-advocacy.org/#where https://open-web-advocacy.org/#where we run through this argument in detail. It should also be important to note that blink is a fork of webkit which is a fork of khtml. There is nothing stoping competition within the chromium browsers as outlined in section 8 of the document. We want Safari/webkit to succeed.
- ocdtrekkie 5y ago
  Choosing not to implement insecure and poorly thought out features isn't "underfunding" or "neglecting" Safari. It's a choice to put users, not Google, first. Google has used a litany of underhanded tactics to obliterate every single browser in an open space. Claiming opening up iOS to competing browsers would be helping Safari succeed is just ignoring history.