3 ms·

> allowing Chromium to ship responsibly while consensus was witheld in standards by Apple It's interesting how perceptions work. You could say, "Allowing Chrom

> allowing Chromium to ship responsibly while consensus was witheld in standards by Apple It's interesting how perceptions work. You could say, "Allowing Chromium to ship whatever they want with no regard for standards bodies or their consensus", and it'd be just as accurate. Chrome is shipping a browser with a well-established goal of narrowing the gap between native apps and web apps, and so it pushes all these features for web apps. Safari seems to prioritise building a solid, fast browser for -websites-, so obviously, web app features will take a back seat. Almost everything in that list of missing features shipped in 16.4 is related to web apps. And stuff like the Reporting API, which isn't web-app-specific, hasn't been released in Firefox yet either, so it's not like Safari's behind, even if you tag it with "2018"; it sounds like there's more to that story than just "they're five years behind".

junofan 4y ago
IIRC the perception of Chrome developers was that the Google promo system was incentivizing number of commits and features at one point in time, so they were perceived to be just dumping whatever out there.
- nikanj 4y ago
  It rewards changes, not just inclusions. Removal of well-liked and widely used features also gets you a good performance review.
- olliej 4y ago
  Back when I was involved there was a distinct impression that people got bonuses for getting commit rights, etc - so we’d get people who would swing by making the requisite 10-15 patches - generally relatively low value changes (fixing formatting, tidying up comments, etc), get the commit rights and then often never been heard or seen from again. I didn’t know if that was just hearsay - it wasn’t the case when I was at Google but that was some time post blink - but the pattern of behaviour made it seem super plausible.
h0l0cube 4y ago
> Safari seems to prioritise building a solid, fast browser for -websites- Are you really that naive about Apple’s motivations here? From the article: > They argued that if developers don't like its generous offer to take only 30% of their revenue, there's always Cupertino's highly capable browser to fall back on. > The only problem, of course, is that lawyers and regulators ask follow-up questions like "is it?" and "what do developers think?" > Which they did.
- h0l0cube 4y ago
  [flagged]

junofan 4y ago

IIRC the perception of Chrome developers was that the Google promo system was incentivizing number of commits and features at one point in time, so they were perceived to be just dumping whatever out there.

nikanj 4y ago
It rewards changes, not just inclusions. Removal of well-liked and widely used features also gets you a good performance review.
olliej 4y ago
Back when I was involved there was a distinct impression that people got bonuses for getting commit rights, etc - so we’d get people who would swing by making the requisite 10-15 patches - generally relatively low value changes (fixing formatting, tidying up comments, etc), get the commit rights and then often never been heard or seen from again. I didn’t know if that was just hearsay - it wasn’t the case when I was at Google but that was some time post blink - but the pattern of behaviour made it seem super plausible.

h0l0cube 4y ago

> Safari seems to prioritise building a solid, fast browser for -websites- Are you really that naive about Apple’s motivations here? From the article: > They argued that if developers don't like its generous offer to take only 30% of their revenue, there's always Cupertino's highly capable browser to fall back on. > The only problem, of course, is that lawyers and regulators ask follow-up questions like "is it?" and "what do developers think?" > Which they did.

h0l0cube 4y ago
[flagged]