4 ms·

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

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
  Our group was initially formed by a group of people who develop for iOS Safari on daily basis. We have an exceptionally detailed understanding of the bugs and functionality issues of the browser. The only reason google is in the conversation at all is their browser along with Firefox and Edge has vastly better functionality and stability. We’re trying to fix real world problems caused by anti-competitive behavior. Any debate needs to start with the premise that web apps are not competitively viable on iOS and that Safari is in a poor state. Then the next step is to discuss potential solutions.
  - dmitriid 4y ago
    > Our group was initially formed by a group of people who develop for iOS Safari on daily basis. Yes, you keep copy-pasting that. As if that absolves you of factually incorrect statements. > We have an exceptionally detailed understanding of the bugs and functionality issues of the browser. And yet you fail to understand that hardware APIs are opposed by BOTH Safari AND Firefox. And yet you include them in your lists as if they were actual standards that Safari absolutely must implement. They are not. Same for a bunch of other Chrome non-standards. In a recent discussion it turned out that you didn't even know what actual objections BOTH Safari AND Firefox have against them. Same for pretending that Edge is different from Chrome because it removed Google-only services from it. It's not. It's a re-skin with very minor modifications. You've listed over thirty things that Edge removed from Chrome to make a "different browser". Can you name 10 or 5 of them that are actually relevant to actual web? Your entire OWA isn't arguing in good faith and is basically parroting Google's propaganda word for word. > Any debate needs to start with the premise that web apps are not competitively viable on iOS and that Safari is in a poor state. No. Any debate in good faith has to start with discussing the state of the open web and Chrome's utter dominance of it. As the top comment rightly said, "People keep arguing Apple is being anti-competitive. But no one seems to recon with the possible consequences of what they’re asking for." [1] Should Safari be better? Yes. Should it be "better" by blindly implementing whatever Google throws over the wall and gullible developers eat up as if it was heavenly manna? No. > Then the next step is to discuss potential solutions. Breaking the web forward: https://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2021/08/breaking_the_we.html https://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2021/08/breaking_th... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31895335 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31895335
    - mtomweb 4y ago
      The issue is you are focusing on the specific APIs as a strawman argument which would require us to argue each and every API on its individual merits something neither of us has time for. Instead let’s focus on the core issues: 1. Severe underfunding of Safari 2. Bugs 3. Install Prompts/Banners 4. Push API 1. Apple has no incentive to fund their browser while they are not at any risk of losing market share to the competition on their primary OS. 2. Because of the underfunding and the fact users/developers can’t shift to other browsers, bugs that are either impossible to work around (or require a very high level of skills) have not been fixed. Some which were reported 7 years ago. 3. Users do not know web apps exist. They have no way to install them. 4. Notifications arrived for native apps in 2009, in 2022 they still are not available for web apps even though they are essential for many different types of apps. Apple has promised them in 2023 likely as a result of our advocacy work. Without a viable web ecosystem on iOS mobile web apps are dead and the entire ecosystem gets shifted to native apps and webkit applies no competitive pressure on chrome/edge or Firefox. The status quo is the worse case scenario. The fix for this scenario is competition. With a 60% market share on MacOS (the on my comparable market where Safari is the default), as long as apple meets developer needs then I can’t see them losing a majority market share on iOS. A highly funded Webkit be able to contribute to the web ecosystem instead of holding it back.

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
Our group was initially formed by a group of people who develop for iOS Safari on daily basis. We have an exceptionally detailed understanding of the bugs and functionality issues of the browser. The only reason google is in the conversation at all is their browser along with Firefox and Edge has vastly better functionality and stability. We’re trying to fix real world problems caused by anti-competitive behavior. Any debate needs to start with the premise that web apps are not competitively viable on iOS and that Safari is in a poor state. Then the next step is to discuss potential solutions.
- dmitriid 4y ago
  > Our group was initially formed by a group of people who develop for iOS Safari on daily basis. Yes, you keep copy-pasting that. As if that absolves you of factually incorrect statements. > We have an exceptionally detailed understanding of the bugs and functionality issues of the browser. And yet you fail to understand that hardware APIs are opposed by BOTH Safari AND Firefox. And yet you include them in your lists as if they were actual standards that Safari absolutely must implement. They are not. Same for a bunch of other Chrome non-standards. In a recent discussion it turned out that you didn't even know what actual objections BOTH Safari AND Firefox have against them. Same for pretending that Edge is different from Chrome because it removed Google-only services from it. It's not. It's a re-skin with very minor modifications. You've listed over thirty things that Edge removed from Chrome to make a "different browser". Can you name 10 or 5 of them that are actually relevant to actual web? Your entire OWA isn't arguing in good faith and is basically parroting Google's propaganda word for word. > Any debate needs to start with the premise that web apps are not competitively viable on iOS and that Safari is in a poor state. No. Any debate in good faith has to start with discussing the state of the open web and Chrome's utter dominance of it. As the top comment rightly said, "People keep arguing Apple is being anti-competitive. But no one seems to recon with the possible consequences of what they’re asking for." [1] Should Safari be better? Yes. Should it be "better" by blindly implementing whatever Google throws over the wall and gullible developers eat up as if it was heavenly manna? No. > Then the next step is to discuss potential solutions. Breaking the web forward: https://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2021/08/breaking_the_we.html https://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2021/08/breaking_th... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31895335 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31895335
  - mtomweb 4y ago
    The issue is you are focusing on the specific APIs as a strawman argument which would require us to argue each and every API on its individual merits something neither of us has time for. Instead let’s focus on the core issues: 1. Severe underfunding of Safari 2. Bugs 3. Install Prompts/Banners 4. Push API 1. Apple has no incentive to fund their browser while they are not at any risk of losing market share to the competition on their primary OS. 2. Because of the underfunding and the fact users/developers can’t shift to other browsers, bugs that are either impossible to work around (or require a very high level of skills) have not been fixed. Some which were reported 7 years ago. 3. Users do not know web apps exist. They have no way to install them. 4. Notifications arrived for native apps in 2009, in 2022 they still are not available for web apps even though they are essential for many different types of apps. Apple has promised them in 2023 likely as a result of our advocacy work. Without a viable web ecosystem on iOS mobile web apps are dead and the entire ecosystem gets shifted to native apps and webkit applies no competitive pressure on chrome/edge or Firefox. The status quo is the worse case scenario. The fix for this scenario is competition. With a 60% market share on MacOS (the on my comparable market where Safari is the default), as long as apple meets developer needs then I can’t see them losing a majority market share on iOS. A highly funded Webkit be able to contribute to the web ecosystem instead of holding it back.