3 ms·

> Selfishly I hope Apple continues using its iron grip on iOS to prevent anything other than Safari's engine there. It's so weird these days seeing people lite

by ajross 3y ago

> Selfishly I hope Apple continues using its iron grip on iOS to prevent anything other than Safari's engine there. It's so weird these days seeing people literally cheering for the success of a proprietary product on a completely closed platform over an open source engine. Firefox, sure. I can get behind that even if my professional life technically argues against it. I see the draw there and won't argue about benefits. But Safari? Seriously? Even discounting the existence of Firefox, the "monoculture" argument falls down in the face of products like Edge and Opera (and countless others -- Linux distros ship Chromium, Teslas all have a build installed, etc...), which are *successful forks* of Chromium. If Google goes evil and turns into a bad steward, we know already that Microsoft et. al. won't be impacted and can continue to ship their unadulterated products. Because that's what they're doing today. Really? Safari?

afavour 3y ago
> If Google goes evil and turns into a bad steward, we know already that Microsoft et. al. won't be impacted I suspect that's not OP's fear. Google is powerful enough that they can do whatever they want with Chrome. They could even close source the thing and implement a load of proprietary APIs if they wanted and the bulk of users would continue to use it. One of the things holding them back from doing so is the fact that Chromium can't run on the most popular mobile platform in the US. I'm no defender of Safari but I can see the logic at work.
- ajross 3y ago
  > They could even close source the thing and implement a load of proprietary APIs Right, but that capability is exactly what the upthread comment is cheering for Apple having. Apple goes even farther and straight up denies competitors access to its platform entirely. It's the asymmetry I don't understand: why is proprietary control good for one side but not for the other? Is the goal here preserving open systems and interoperability or is it just to Beat Google?
  - afavour 3y ago
    > why is proprietary control good for one side and not the other? It isn’t for either, this is a “least worst” scenario. Both sides have the capability to push proprietary APIs but largely fail at doing so because they don’t have a monopoly over the market. They are forced to compromise on a middle ground (supporting the open web), which is better than one side being able to entirely dominate the market and do whatever they want. > Is the goal here preserving open systems and interoperability or is it just to Beat Google? In this specific scenario they are one and the same but the aim is the former. Google controls the desktop browser market already, one of the only reasons they haven’t done the same on mobile is because Apple won’t allow it. The argument is not that Apple should control everything, it’s that stalemate is the best we’ve got.
    - ajross 3y ago
      > Google controls the desktop browser market already, one of the only reasons they haven’t done the same on mobile is because Apple won’t allow it. Yeah, I think this is wrong, but I'm going to bail on this discussion since it's too close to my employment. But my opinions haven't really changed anyway: from my perspective both sides have "control" over a market, but one side has been a good steward, allowing forks and experimentation and open implementation, and the other side has been an inarguably bad steward by disallowing competition entirely. And it's shocking (and frankly a little Orwellian) to see people trying to argue the opposite.
      - afavour 3y ago
        One side having been a "good steward" is your opinion, describing counter opinions as "a little Orwellian" strikes me as hyperbole. From my perspective I agree that Google has been a better steward of the web than many others would be or have been. But I have spent too much of my professional life dealing with things like AMP pages and shitty, browser-crashing ads provided via Google ad networks to say they are a total objective good (to say nothing of the Web Environment Integrity proposal and other stuff that never succeeded, remember when they wanted to put Dart in Chrome?). Even if you think they are objectively good, remember that they've been a good steward within the current context where they don't hold overall power. Microsoft is a good steward of the web these days but I've been around long enough to remember the IE6 days. If given total control over the future of the web I have every expectation that Google would behave like MS did back then. It's nothing personal against any company, I think it's inherent in the nature of any private company in total control of a market to bend it to their will. Expecting them to do anything else is foolish. I fear the native future Apple wants but can't achieve because of the open web. I fear the dominated web future Google wants but can't achieve because of Apple. I'm equal opportunity scared of all these bastards.

by ajross 3y ago

afavour 3y ago

> If Google goes evil and turns into a bad steward, we know already that Microsoft et. al. won't be impacted I suspect that's not OP's fear. Google is powerful enough that they can do whatever they want with Chrome. They could even close source the thing and implement a load of proprietary APIs if they wanted and the bulk of users would continue to use it. One of the things holding them back from doing so is the fact that Chromium can't run on the most popular mobile platform in the US. I'm no defender of Safari but I can see the logic at work.

ajross 3y ago
> They could even close source the thing and implement a load of proprietary APIs Right, but that capability is exactly what the upthread comment is cheering for Apple having. Apple goes even farther and straight up denies competitors access to its platform entirely. It's the asymmetry I don't understand: why is proprietary control good for one side but not for the other? Is the goal here preserving open systems and interoperability or is it just to Beat Google?
- afavour 3y ago
  > why is proprietary control good for one side and not the other? It isn’t for either, this is a “least worst” scenario. Both sides have the capability to push proprietary APIs but largely fail at doing so because they don’t have a monopoly over the market. They are forced to compromise on a middle ground (supporting the open web), which is better than one side being able to entirely dominate the market and do whatever they want. > Is the goal here preserving open systems and interoperability or is it just to Beat Google? In this specific scenario they are one and the same but the aim is the former. Google controls the desktop browser market already, one of the only reasons they haven’t done the same on mobile is because Apple won’t allow it. The argument is not that Apple should control everything, it’s that stalemate is the best we’ve got.
  - ajross 3y ago
    > Google controls the desktop browser market already, one of the only reasons they haven’t done the same on mobile is because Apple won’t allow it. Yeah, I think this is wrong, but I'm going to bail on this discussion since it's too close to my employment. But my opinions haven't really changed anyway: from my perspective both sides have "control" over a market, but one side has been a good steward, allowing forks and experimentation and open implementation, and the other side has been an inarguably bad steward by disallowing competition entirely. And it's shocking (and frankly a little Orwellian) to see people trying to argue the opposite.
    - afavour 3y ago
      One side having been a "good steward" is your opinion, describing counter opinions as "a little Orwellian" strikes me as hyperbole. From my perspective I agree that Google has been a better steward of the web than many others would be or have been. But I have spent too much of my professional life dealing with things like AMP pages and shitty, browser-crashing ads provided via Google ad networks to say they are a total objective good (to say nothing of the Web Environment Integrity proposal and other stuff that never succeeded, remember when they wanted to put Dart in Chrome?). Even if you think they are objectively good, remember that they've been a good steward within the current context where they don't hold overall power. Microsoft is a good steward of the web these days but I've been around long enough to remember the IE6 days. If given total control over the future of the web I have every expectation that Google would behave like MS did back then. It's nothing personal against any company, I think it's inherent in the nature of any private company in total control of a market to bend it to their will. Expecting them to do anything else is foolish. I fear the native future Apple wants but can't achieve because of the open web. I fear the dominated web future Google wants but can't achieve because of Apple. I'm equal opportunity scared of all these bastards.