4 ms·

This is weird. Okay, so it may not be a software bug at all, but I'm gonna move these goalposts and insist this is a product design bug, or something. If this

This is weird. Okay, so it may not be a software bug at all, but I'm gonna move these goalposts and insist this is a product design bug, or something. If this is intentional behavior, I don't understand the point. A full-screen video should be the only one playing IMO. Playing multiple (windowed) videos is one thing, but having 30 of them overlap full screen is quite another. And with no affordances to mass-terminate them, the result is unwanted behavior. So: not a bug in the "off-by-one" or "use-after-free" sense, but damn if it ain't a close cousin.

Maursault 4y ago
> Playing multiple (windowed) videos is one thing, but having 30 of them overlap full screen is quite another. Behavior can be duplicated on any modern computer, i.e. you can have as many overlapping fullscreen windows as memory will tolerate, probably thousands and much more than that. Why would anyone want to do that? To cry "bug," I imagine. It may not be intentional design, but my point is that this is not a bug, by the definition of what a bug is. There is no actual error here. The code is operating as expected. There may be issues with the interface design, but there also very well may not be.
- function_seven 4y ago
  > The code is operating as expected I highly doubt this. When Apple rolled out multiple video support, they did not expect that a random website could—having gained permission to spawn one video player—reuse that blessing 29 more times. The browser will prevent auto-playing videos from spawning absent a user interaction. This is a feature that prevents pop-up hell. With this change, they failed to update the "make sure user is cool with this" code. It's a regression, and will be fixed in an update or I eat my hat. Again, I know this isn't some "error found on line 384 of vid.cpp" or whatever, but it's definitely not the way Apple wants this to work. My desktop browsers won't do this, nor any other browser I've used in the past 10 years.
  - Maursault 4y ago
    Design choices, that's all. mobile Safari is a little different than desktop browsers. It uses the same engine as desktop Safari, but I've always suspected the video player is not built-in to the browser, but instead a separate and discrete application. I suspect this because every other application appears to have an identical video player. Maybe they're all sharing code, but more likely the video player is system-available to any application. But running multiple instances of that video player on iOS is academic. Why you're not able to duplicate this in any of your desktop browsers in the last decade is anyone's guess.
    - SigmundA 4y ago
      >Why you're not able to duplicate this in any of your desktop browsers in the last decade is anyone's guess. Because it's a bug not an intentional design choice. If you can provide a legitimate use case for being able to open 30 overlapping fullscreen videos from a single user click on a web site then you might have a some sort of argument. This doesn't work on desktop Safari thankfully, if it did you could make some argument they are sharing code and trying to make iOS more like a desktop OS with multitasking, but no again there is no reason to do this on any OS other than to crash users browsers.
      - Maursault 4y ago
        First of all, there is no use case for this very specific implementation of multitasking, fullscreen and overlapping windows. Second of all, the OP created and invented this. Though OP claims this behavior was innocently stumbled upon, it is clear, upon discovery of the behavior, the OP intentionally produced this behavior with their own webpage. There is no error here. The code works precisely as intended, thus, this is not a bug, because bugs are errors in code that breaks the program's execution. That is not happening! The program still works and keeps on working until OP makes mobile Safari crash by intentionally eating up all the memory. A software bug is an error, flaw or fault in the design, development, or operation of computer software that causes it to produce an incorrect or unexpected result, or to behave in unintended ways.[1] Please continue to review the first 6 words of the definition until it sinks in that a bug is an error in the code, and a bug is not a quirk of interface design that you don't care for. If there is no flaw in the code, then there is no bug. What OP and you and everyone else that apparently doesn't understand what a bug is are complaining about is this particular facet of mobile Safari's interface design. So if there is a problem here, it is not a flaw in the program code. It is a weird behavior that occurs when and only when the user decides to make their browser do weird things by creating a webpage to intentionally cause it. It sounds pretty darn unlikely to be repeated by anyone, and afaict, no one seems to have duplicated the behavior and reported back. But this is beside the point because the code is executing precisely as expected, and the program or system is not crashing because of this behavior, if it is crashing at all. Again, this is not a bug. It is an entirely different animal. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_bug https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_bug
- bentcorner 4y ago
  > It may not be intentional design, but my point is that this is not a bug, by the definition of what a bug is. There is no actual error here. The code is operating as expected. There may be issues with the interface design, but there also very well may not be. Is this a useful distinction? The user expects something, the designer expects something different. Just the other day I read about Jeep's Monostable Shifter (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jD1-aQSO5Hg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jD1-aQSO5Hg) and how it was attributed to people getting hurt or dying. It's operating exactly as designed and intended but was still recalled.

Maursault 4y ago

> Playing multiple (windowed) videos is one thing, but having 30 of them overlap full screen is quite another. Behavior can be duplicated on any modern computer, i.e. you can have as many overlapping fullscreen windows as memory will tolerate, probably thousands and much more than that. Why would anyone want to do that? To cry "bug," I imagine. It may not be intentional design, but my point is that this is not a bug, by the definition of what a bug is. There is no actual error here. The code is operating as expected. There may be issues with the interface design, but there also very well may not be.

function_seven 4y ago
> The code is operating as expected I highly doubt this. When Apple rolled out multiple video support, they did not expect that a random website could—having gained permission to spawn one video player—reuse that blessing 29 more times. The browser will prevent auto-playing videos from spawning absent a user interaction. This is a feature that prevents pop-up hell. With this change, they failed to update the "make sure user is cool with this" code. It's a regression, and will be fixed in an update or I eat my hat. Again, I know this isn't some "error found on line 384 of vid.cpp" or whatever, but it's definitely not the way Apple wants this to work. My desktop browsers won't do this, nor any other browser I've used in the past 10 years.
- Maursault 4y ago
  Design choices, that's all. mobile Safari is a little different than desktop browsers. It uses the same engine as desktop Safari, but I've always suspected the video player is not built-in to the browser, but instead a separate and discrete application. I suspect this because every other application appears to have an identical video player. Maybe they're all sharing code, but more likely the video player is system-available to any application. But running multiple instances of that video player on iOS is academic. Why you're not able to duplicate this in any of your desktop browsers in the last decade is anyone's guess.
  - SigmundA 4y ago
    >Why you're not able to duplicate this in any of your desktop browsers in the last decade is anyone's guess. Because it's a bug not an intentional design choice. If you can provide a legitimate use case for being able to open 30 overlapping fullscreen videos from a single user click on a web site then you might have a some sort of argument. This doesn't work on desktop Safari thankfully, if it did you could make some argument they are sharing code and trying to make iOS more like a desktop OS with multitasking, but no again there is no reason to do this on any OS other than to crash users browsers.
    - Maursault 4y ago
      First of all, there is no use case for this very specific implementation of multitasking, fullscreen and overlapping windows. Second of all, the OP created and invented this. Though OP claims this behavior was innocently stumbled upon, it is clear, upon discovery of the behavior, the OP intentionally produced this behavior with their own webpage. There is no error here. The code works precisely as intended, thus, this is not a bug, because bugs are errors in code that breaks the program's execution. That is not happening! The program still works and keeps on working until OP makes mobile Safari crash by intentionally eating up all the memory. A software bug is an error, flaw or fault in the design, development, or operation of computer software that causes it to produce an incorrect or unexpected result, or to behave in unintended ways.[1] Please continue to review the first 6 words of the definition until it sinks in that a bug is an error in the code, and a bug is not a quirk of interface design that you don't care for. If there is no flaw in the code, then there is no bug. What OP and you and everyone else that apparently doesn't understand what a bug is are complaining about is this particular facet of mobile Safari's interface design. So if there is a problem here, it is not a flaw in the program code. It is a weird behavior that occurs when and only when the user decides to make their browser do weird things by creating a webpage to intentionally cause it. It sounds pretty darn unlikely to be repeated by anyone, and afaict, no one seems to have duplicated the behavior and reported back. But this is beside the point because the code is executing precisely as expected, and the program or system is not crashing because of this behavior, if it is crashing at all. Again, this is not a bug. It is an entirely different animal. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_bug https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_bug
bentcorner 4y ago
> It may not be intentional design, but my point is that this is not a bug, by the definition of what a bug is. There is no actual error here. The code is operating as expected. There may be issues with the interface design, but there also very well may not be. Is this a useful distinction? The user expects something, the designer expects something different. Just the other day I read about Jeep's Monostable Shifter (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jD1-aQSO5Hg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jD1-aQSO5Hg) and how it was attributed to people getting hurt or dying. It's operating exactly as designed and intended but was still recalled.