13 ms·

Would you point me to Apple's alternative implementation for access bluetooth / nfc? That's right it doesn't exist. Instead they offer for you to install a na

Would you point me to Apple's alternative implementation for access bluetooth / nfc? That's right it doesn't exist. Instead they offer for you to install a native app which once granted bluetooth access can continuously scan and connect to any bluetooth device they want. - Install Prompts 7 Years behind. Many thousands of requests. - Notifications 7 years behind. - Fullscreen API 11 years behind. - Badging 5 years behind. - Deep Links 7 years behind. - Screen Orientation Lock 10 years behind. and what's your excuse going to be the myriad of bugs/stability issues?

mtomweb 4y ago
Again. People who ACTUALLY build apps in Safari are the ones that run into these issues. The only people that attempt to defend it are the ones who don't even build apps for it.
dmitriid 4y ago
> Would you point me to Apple's alternative implementation for access bluetooth / nfc? 1. This is clearly moving goalposts 2. Why would Apple or Firefox provide you with an "alternative implementation for access bluetooth / nfc"? > Instead they offer for you to install No. Instead both they and Mozilla consider these non-standrads harmful and have no intention of implementing them. Or are you going to pretend that Mozilla is in Apple's pocket and does this to enrich Apple? I'm not going to react to yet another mindless list of things that you have little knowledge of.
- mtomweb 4y ago
  1. If you're going to say you don't like spec because of issues, you should explicitly describe what those issues are OR offer up an alternative spec. Simply not engaging on the spec doesn't present as engineers trying to solve a problem. 2. Neither Apple or Mozilla have described in detail what they think the harms are and why the specs do not cover those harms. But Mozilla is not a gatekeeper and doesn't ban the competition from 50% of mobile devices, so IMO they should be free to decide to do whatever they want even if I disagree with their decision. Apple on the other hand not only doesn't describe the security issues in ANY detail, or outline why the specs don't cover them, it bans the competition from bringing any solution to the problem while at the same time providing a significantly insecure solution on native which is widely used to track and surveil users and for 9 years didn't even require a permission prompt. As for resorting to insults about mindless list of things, have you even attempted to build a web app for iOS? In every single case of the most ardent Safari defenders the answer is no. Unsurprisingly the people that care about the issues in Safari are the ones with the most knowledge that have to work with it daily.
  - dmitriid 4y ago
    > If you're going to say you don't like spec because of issues, you should explicitly describe what those issues are They did > Neither Apple or Mozilla have described in detail what they think the harms are They did > As for resorting to insults about mindless list of things, have you even attempted to build a web app for iOS Doesn't explain why you keep dumping these lists without thinking and parroting Google's talking points

mtomweb 4y ago

Again. People who ACTUALLY build apps in Safari are the ones that run into these issues. The only people that attempt to defend it are the ones who don't even build apps for it.

dmitriid 4y ago

> Would you point me to Apple's alternative implementation for access bluetooth / nfc? 1. This is clearly moving goalposts 2. Why would Apple or Firefox provide you with an "alternative implementation for access bluetooth / nfc"? > Instead they offer for you to install No. Instead both they and Mozilla consider these non-standrads harmful and have no intention of implementing them. Or are you going to pretend that Mozilla is in Apple's pocket and does this to enrich Apple? I'm not going to react to yet another mindless list of things that you have little knowledge of.

mtomweb 4y ago
1. If you're going to say you don't like spec because of issues, you should explicitly describe what those issues are OR offer up an alternative spec. Simply not engaging on the spec doesn't present as engineers trying to solve a problem. 2. Neither Apple or Mozilla have described in detail what they think the harms are and why the specs do not cover those harms. But Mozilla is not a gatekeeper and doesn't ban the competition from 50% of mobile devices, so IMO they should be free to decide to do whatever they want even if I disagree with their decision. Apple on the other hand not only doesn't describe the security issues in ANY detail, or outline why the specs don't cover them, it bans the competition from bringing any solution to the problem while at the same time providing a significantly insecure solution on native which is widely used to track and surveil users and for 9 years didn't even require a permission prompt. As for resorting to insults about mindless list of things, have you even attempted to build a web app for iOS? In every single case of the most ardent Safari defenders the answer is no. Unsurprisingly the people that care about the issues in Safari are the ones with the most knowledge that have to work with it daily.
- dmitriid 4y ago
  > If you're going to say you don't like spec because of issues, you should explicitly describe what those issues are They did > Neither Apple or Mozilla have described in detail what they think the harms are They did > As for resorting to insults about mindless list of things, have you even attempted to build a web app for iOS Doesn't explain why you keep dumping these lists without thinking and parroting Google's talking points