6 ms·

As a user the harms are invisible to you. If you'd like to find out how it harms consumers, businesses, developers and the web, please read our regulatory subm

As a user the harms are invisible to you. If you'd like to find out how it harms consumers, businesses, developers and the web, please read our regulatory submission "Bringing Competition to Walled Gardens": https://open-web-advocacy.org/files/OWA%20-%20Bringing%20Competition%20to%20Walled%20Gardens%20-%20v1.2.pdf https://open-web-advocacy.org/files/OWA%20-%20Bringing%20Com...

elashri 4y ago
Isn't the main argument is the user choice? if I as a user chose what the comment you are replying said, then what is the problem?
- mtomweb 4y ago
  Yes users should be free to choose whatever browser they want and the gatekeeper shouldn't be allowed to interfere with that.
  - elashri 4y ago
    That is not my point. I mean the point is that many people who chose to own IOS did that because of privacy and security it provides as the current apple ecosystem. It is like choosing a private school with a restrict rules and code of conduct over another private school with more open rules (options) since you pay for your phone anyway.
    - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
      or they could just be choosing the prettiest glass and metal rectangle without data, we can't assume either of our justifications are what go through buyers minds
- thayne 4y ago
  But users don't have a lot of choice. There are two options, and I don't like either of them.
- philliphaydon 4y ago
  Sue user choice. But some times less choice is better. If every website prompts for push notifications my dad would end up throwing his phone out the window in anger if he started getting notifications because a website updated. My parents have no clue what they are doing on a phone. The less features the better.
labcomputer 4y ago
> As a user the harms are invisible to you. Why would you post a document refuting your own point? I explicitly do. not. want. my web browser to have access to the bluetooth and NFC APIs. Nor the screen orientation lock and full screen APIs. I absolutely do not want website notifications. I don't know how to be more explicit. Those are things developers want. Those are not things users want. And no amount of gaslighting about invisible harms is going to convince us that what you want is what we want.
- echelon 4y ago
  In the world you're describing, the future of technology is owned by Apple and Google forever. They got there first, and they'll forever be the victors. They can tax it. They can starve the entire landscape of innovation capital and prevent other companies from ever growing large. They set the rules, and they have enough human and financial capital to keep the game going forever. That's not good for capitalism, the free market, entrepreneurs, or innovation. In the ten years since smartphones came about, we've seen a contraction of other forms of computing. A contraction in the number of smartphone manufacturers, too! The world is worse for it. This type of duopolistic advantage also creates a system where Apple and Google can grow close to governments and become a surveillance and control apparatus. That's scarier than anything a developer could do to slight you. The status quo is great for Apple and Google shareholders, but bad for those trying to innovate and those wanting personal freedom and privacy. Almost all of computing connects to these two companies now, and that's a fragility that benefits these two giants to the rest of our detriment. > I explicitly do. not. want. my web browser to have access to the bluetooth and NFC APIs. Nor the screen orientation lock and full screen APIs. I absolutely do not want website notifications. Easy enough to turn all of these things off. You're describing a setting.
  - kryptozinc 4y ago
    > Easy enough to turn all of these things off. You're describing a setting. Can you turn off all of these in Chrome?
    - 4y ago
dmitriid 4y ago
See, your link identifies you very uncharitably as a Google shill. Both Firefox and Safari are against most hardware APIs for many reasons including technical ones. Only Chrome is reckless enough to enable them even though no consensus has been reached on them. Those specs are nowhere near to being standard. They are "Draft community reports". And yet you list them there as if they were standards and as if Apple absolutely had to implement them for greater good (and not because the dominant browser implemented them) Edit. I can't even begin with the laughable "Edge differentiates from Chrome" because it removed a few Google-specific things like Google Pay.
- mtomweb 4y ago
  It’s hard to take comments from someone who doesn’t believe in the Web or Web Apps seriously. If you start from a position that Web Apps should not be able to compete on mobile devices, then our viewpoints are so diametrically opposed there’s really nothing to argue about. OWA was formed to ensure that mobile Web Apps become viable, if you disagree with that as the premise, all the best.
  - dmitriid 4y ago
    > It’s hard to take comments from someone who doesn’t believe in the Web or Web Apps seriously. Ad hominem is not as good as argument as you want it to be. > If you start from a position that Web Apps should not be able to compete on mobile devices If you start with ascribing thoughts and words to your opponent that your opponent never thought or said, you're not arguing in good faith. > OWA was formed to ensure that mobile Web Apps become viable, if you disagree with that as the premise, all the best. That is literally not what I said. However, you can't even see beyond Google's propaganda to understand what I wrote.
    - coconut08 4y ago
      >Ad hominem is not as good as argument as you want it to be. you are the one who called him a google shill.
    - mtomweb 4y ago

elashri 4y ago

Isn't the main argument is the user choice? if I as a user chose what the comment you are replying said, then what is the problem?

mtomweb 4y ago
Yes users should be free to choose whatever browser they want and the gatekeeper shouldn't be allowed to interfere with that.
- elashri 4y ago
  That is not my point. I mean the point is that many people who chose to own IOS did that because of privacy and security it provides as the current apple ecosystem. It is like choosing a private school with a restrict rules and code of conduct over another private school with more open rules (options) since you pay for your phone anyway.
  - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
    or they could just be choosing the prettiest glass and metal rectangle without data, we can't assume either of our justifications are what go through buyers minds
thayne 4y ago
But users don't have a lot of choice. There are two options, and I don't like either of them.
philliphaydon 4y ago
Sue user choice. But some times less choice is better. If every website prompts for push notifications my dad would end up throwing his phone out the window in anger if he started getting notifications because a website updated. My parents have no clue what they are doing on a phone. The less features the better.

labcomputer 4y ago

> As a user the harms are invisible to you. Why would you post a document refuting your own point? I explicitly do. not. want. my web browser to have access to the bluetooth and NFC APIs. Nor the screen orientation lock and full screen APIs. I absolutely do not want website notifications. I don't know how to be more explicit. Those are things developers want. Those are not things users want. And no amount of gaslighting about invisible harms is going to convince us that what you want is what we want.

echelon 4y ago
In the world you're describing, the future of technology is owned by Apple and Google forever. They got there first, and they'll forever be the victors. They can tax it. They can starve the entire landscape of innovation capital and prevent other companies from ever growing large. They set the rules, and they have enough human and financial capital to keep the game going forever. That's not good for capitalism, the free market, entrepreneurs, or innovation. In the ten years since smartphones came about, we've seen a contraction of other forms of computing. A contraction in the number of smartphone manufacturers, too! The world is worse for it. This type of duopolistic advantage also creates a system where Apple and Google can grow close to governments and become a surveillance and control apparatus. That's scarier than anything a developer could do to slight you. The status quo is great for Apple and Google shareholders, but bad for those trying to innovate and those wanting personal freedom and privacy. Almost all of computing connects to these two companies now, and that's a fragility that benefits these two giants to the rest of our detriment. > I explicitly do. not. want. my web browser to have access to the bluetooth and NFC APIs. Nor the screen orientation lock and full screen APIs. I absolutely do not want website notifications. Easy enough to turn all of these things off. You're describing a setting.
- kryptozinc 4y ago
  > Easy enough to turn all of these things off. You're describing a setting. Can you turn off all of these in Chrome?
  - 4y ago

dmitriid 4y ago

See, your link identifies you very uncharitably as a Google shill. Both Firefox and Safari are against most hardware APIs for many reasons including technical ones. Only Chrome is reckless enough to enable them even though no consensus has been reached on them. Those specs are nowhere near to being standard. They are "Draft community reports". And yet you list them there as if they were standards and as if Apple absolutely had to implement them for greater good (and not because the dominant browser implemented them) Edit. I can't even begin with the laughable "Edge differentiates from Chrome" because it removed a few Google-specific things like Google Pay.

mtomweb 4y ago
It’s hard to take comments from someone who doesn’t believe in the Web or Web Apps seriously. If you start from a position that Web Apps should not be able to compete on mobile devices, then our viewpoints are so diametrically opposed there’s really nothing to argue about. OWA was formed to ensure that mobile Web Apps become viable, if you disagree with that as the premise, all the best.
- dmitriid 4y ago
  > It’s hard to take comments from someone who doesn’t believe in the Web or Web Apps seriously. Ad hominem is not as good as argument as you want it to be. > If you start from a position that Web Apps should not be able to compete on mobile devices If you start with ascribing thoughts and words to your opponent that your opponent never thought or said, you're not arguing in good faith. > OWA was formed to ensure that mobile Web Apps become viable, if you disagree with that as the premise, all the best. That is literally not what I said. However, you can't even see beyond Google's propaganda to understand what I wrote.
  - coconut08 4y ago
    >Ad hominem is not as good as argument as you want it to be. you are the one who called him a google shill.
  - mtomweb 4y ago