7 ms·

This is because Google are trying to turn Chrome into an app platform to rival Cocoa, while almost every other web player (except Mozilla) has a vested interest

This is because Google are trying to turn Chrome into an app platform to rival Cocoa, while almost every other web player (except Mozilla) has a vested interest in keeping the web a document viewer platform. The recent arguments regarding Adobe's arbitrary region stuff were very enlightening on this.

jlongster 13y ago
Mozilla has a vested interest in keeping the web a "document viewer platform"? Are you serious? Have you even heard of Firefox OS?
- chrisrhoden 13y ago
  > while almost every other web player (except Mozilla)
  - jlongster 13y ago
    Oops, my bad. I didn't see "except". Ignore this! (assuming that it wasn't edited in :))
RivieraKid 13y ago
Exactly my thoughts. Web is a shitty app platform. And because it's a decentralized platform – the specification is developed separately from the implementations – it's moving forward too slowly. Currently, the native platforms and the web is a mess imho. Tons of web standards, android, ios, linux, windows, osx, etc. Web and native platforms have different strenghts but there's no platform that combines them. I wish there was one solid, well-designed platform for both interactive documents and applications and for both mobile devices and desktops. I'm (no longer) a fan of Google, but I'm beginning to think that if Google did this with Chrome, it would be a positive thing. Imagine the massive amount of programmer man-hours it would save.
- pcwalton 13y ago
  > I'm (no longer) a fan of Google, but I'm beginning to think that if Google did this with Chrome, it would be a positive thing. Just so we're clear, you think that it would be a positive thing if Google unilaterally dictated Web standards by using its market power?
  - RivieraKid 13y ago
    My exact position is this. Imagine Google built a open-source, very well-designed doc & app platform, with the advantages of both the web and native platforms. If this platform would get widely adopted, it may be a good thing. Edit: Linux is similar to what I'm talking about except it's a lower-level platform. It's open-source and has a majority market share in many segments (servers, supercomputers, smartphones).
    - sliverstorm 13y ago
      So in other words, imagine if something that would never happen, happened, it might be good. Have I got that right? :P
      - RivieraKid 13y ago
        It's unlikely to happen but not impossible :) What part of the scenario makes you think this won't happen btw?
        sliverstorm 13y ago
        It's just not in Google's interests. Their current plays (Chrome, ChromeOS, Android) illustrate their interests.
    - pcwalton 13y ago
      > Imagine Google built a open-source, very well-designed doc & app platform, with the advantages of both the web and native platforms. If this platform would get widely adopted, it may be a good thing. I don't think it's a good thing if Google achieves this by making Blink into a de-facto standard, effectively making Blink (a large pile of C++ code controlled by a single vendor) the only viable browser engine.
pcwalton 13y ago
> almost every other web player (except Mozilla) has a vested interest in keeping the web a document viewer platform. How do you explain the fact that Mozilla representatives at the WG are also opposed to Google's move here then?
- fidotron 13y ago
  Those are mere technical arguments. Apple and MS, for example, have active interest in preventing Google's vision from happening.
  - pcwalton 13y ago
    The fact that Google is willing to steamroll over consensus with its market power even in the face of technical arguments is precisely the problem here.
    - KirinDave 13y ago
      Why should Google's product roadmap be subject to a consensus of their competitors?
      - masklinn 13y ago
        Microsoft apologists asked the same thing in the late 90s and early 00s. That did not end well for anybody. So here are your answers: 1. because it's a douche move, and 2. because it's bad for the platform and bad for just about everybody. Other than the one who ends up with a monopolistic lock-in over the whole system for half a decade, maybe.
        jrockway 13y ago
        I feel like the Microsoft comparison is a little unfair. I doubt anyone would have complained much if IE and ActiveX were open source projects distributed under the Apache 2.0 license.
kenferry 13y ago
I think you're thinking of entities like "Apple" where it is more useful to think of "the people working on WebKit at Apple". WebKit is what they do, all day, every day. They love the web, that's why they chose to go get a job working on it. To say that the people working on WebKit don't want the web to succeed as an app platform is not something I have ever seen. Go hang out in #webkit on IRC and see what you think. Edit: oh, right, so what IS going on? Exactly what it looks like: once you ship API, as Tab says, it DOES become very difficult to change due to compatibility requirements. That's why you do API review. People are saying, "why are you strong-arming this through?" It's not malicious. I do also have sympathy for Tab. Progress on the web has a committee model, and committees suck. I don't know how they ever get anything done. Maybe it would be better if everything just fragmented, at least it'd move faster.
- fidotron 13y ago
  Actions speak louder than words though. Apple already have integrated and deployed the Adobe CSS regions stuff, Google say it's just not their priority this year and would have performance implications on mobile. This is the weasel way to say they don't care, much as Apple are here. The devs may feel otherwise, but they are beholden to their managers who will be well aware of the strategic implications of their work. Google see Chrome as the best way to bust the iOS App Store, and as such Apple will mysteriously make the e-books in WebKit vision more compelling in the near future than the in browser app development one. I'm not saying I agree with Google here (though more for tech reasons), just that we need to be clear that the web is experiencing a schism, and that there are certain subjects which it is hopeless to expect agreement on. This is one of them.
  - kenferry 13y ago
    Are you arguing that if you care about native app platforms you aren't interested in stuff like the Adobe CSS regions stuff? One of the biggest changes to Cocoa in iOS 7 was TextKit. https://developer.apple.com/Library/ios/documentation/StringsTextFonts/Conceptual/TextAndWebiPhoneOS/CustomTextProcessing/CustomTextProcessing.html https://developer.apple.com/Library/ios/documentation/String... This is concerned with the same sorts of things as regions (though it's more than that), and developers really, really wanted it.
marcosscriven 13y ago
One thing that irritates me is that Apple still don't support WebGL in iOS Safari. Even on the desktop version it has to be manually switched on as a 'developer' tool. And it's clearly technically possible - iAds can use it!
- gress 13y ago
  That's because they aren't satisfied that it's secure enough for the open web yet and they don't want to expose their users to risks they can't protect themselves from.

jlongster 13y ago

Mozilla has a vested interest in keeping the web a "document viewer platform"? Are you serious? Have you even heard of Firefox OS?

chrisrhoden 13y ago
> while almost every other web player (except Mozilla)
- jlongster 13y ago
  Oops, my bad. I didn't see "except". Ignore this! (assuming that it wasn't edited in :))

RivieraKid 13y ago

Exactly my thoughts. Web is a shitty app platform. And because it's a decentralized platform – the specification is developed separately from the implementations – it's moving forward too slowly. Currently, the native platforms and the web is a mess imho. Tons of web standards, android, ios, linux, windows, osx, etc. Web and native platforms have different strenghts but there's no platform that combines them. I wish there was one solid, well-designed platform for both interactive documents and applications and for both mobile devices and desktops. I'm (no longer) a fan of Google, but I'm beginning to think that if Google did this with Chrome, it would be a positive thing. Imagine the massive amount of programmer man-hours it would save.

pcwalton 13y ago
> I'm (no longer) a fan of Google, but I'm beginning to think that if Google did this with Chrome, it would be a positive thing. Just so we're clear, you think that it would be a positive thing if Google unilaterally dictated Web standards by using its market power?
- RivieraKid 13y ago
  My exact position is this. Imagine Google built a open-source, very well-designed doc & app platform, with the advantages of both the web and native platforms. If this platform would get widely adopted, it may be a good thing. Edit: Linux is similar to what I'm talking about except it's a lower-level platform. It's open-source and has a majority market share in many segments (servers, supercomputers, smartphones).
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    So in other words, imagine if something that would never happen, happened, it might be good. Have I got that right? :P
    - RivieraKid 13y ago
      It's unlikely to happen but not impossible :) What part of the scenario makes you think this won't happen btw?
      - sliverstorm 13y ago
        It's just not in Google's interests. Their current plays (Chrome, ChromeOS, Android) illustrate their interests.
  - pcwalton 13y ago
    > Imagine Google built a open-source, very well-designed doc & app platform, with the advantages of both the web and native platforms. If this platform would get widely adopted, it may be a good thing. I don't think it's a good thing if Google achieves this by making Blink into a de-facto standard, effectively making Blink (a large pile of C++ code controlled by a single vendor) the only viable browser engine.

pcwalton 13y ago

> almost every other web player (except Mozilla) has a vested interest in keeping the web a document viewer platform. How do you explain the fact that Mozilla representatives at the WG are also opposed to Google's move here then?

fidotron 13y ago
Those are mere technical arguments. Apple and MS, for example, have active interest in preventing Google's vision from happening.
- pcwalton 13y ago
  The fact that Google is willing to steamroll over consensus with its market power even in the face of technical arguments is precisely the problem here.
  - KirinDave 13y ago
    Why should Google's product roadmap be subject to a consensus of their competitors?
    - masklinn 13y ago
      Microsoft apologists asked the same thing in the late 90s and early 00s. That did not end well for anybody. So here are your answers: 1. because it's a douche move, and 2. because it's bad for the platform and bad for just about everybody. Other than the one who ends up with a monopolistic lock-in over the whole system for half a decade, maybe.
      - jrockway 13y ago
        I feel like the Microsoft comparison is a little unfair. I doubt anyone would have complained much if IE and ActiveX were open source projects distributed under the Apache 2.0 license.

kenferry 13y ago

I think you're thinking of entities like "Apple" where it is more useful to think of "the people working on WebKit at Apple". WebKit is what they do, all day, every day. They love the web, that's why they chose to go get a job working on it. To say that the people working on WebKit don't want the web to succeed as an app platform is not something I have ever seen. Go hang out in #webkit on IRC and see what you think. Edit: oh, right, so what IS going on? Exactly what it looks like: once you ship API, as Tab says, it DOES become very difficult to change due to compatibility requirements. That's why you do API review. People are saying, "why are you strong-arming this through?" It's not malicious. I do also have sympathy for Tab. Progress on the web has a committee model, and committees suck. I don't know how they ever get anything done. Maybe it would be better if everything just fragmented, at least it'd move faster.

fidotron 13y ago
Actions speak louder than words though. Apple already have integrated and deployed the Adobe CSS regions stuff, Google say it's just not their priority this year and would have performance implications on mobile. This is the weasel way to say they don't care, much as Apple are here. The devs may feel otherwise, but they are beholden to their managers who will be well aware of the strategic implications of their work. Google see Chrome as the best way to bust the iOS App Store, and as such Apple will mysteriously make the e-books in WebKit vision more compelling in the near future than the in browser app development one. I'm not saying I agree with Google here (though more for tech reasons), just that we need to be clear that the web is experiencing a schism, and that there are certain subjects which it is hopeless to expect agreement on. This is one of them.
- kenferry 13y ago
  Are you arguing that if you care about native app platforms you aren't interested in stuff like the Adobe CSS regions stuff? One of the biggest changes to Cocoa in iOS 7 was TextKit. https://developer.apple.com/Library/ios/documentation/StringsTextFonts/Conceptual/TextAndWebiPhoneOS/CustomTextProcessing/CustomTextProcessing.html https://developer.apple.com/Library/ios/documentation/String... This is concerned with the same sorts of things as regions (though it's more than that), and developers really, really wanted it.

marcosscriven 13y ago

One thing that irritates me is that Apple still don't support WebGL in iOS Safari. Even on the desktop version it has to be manually switched on as a 'developer' tool. And it's clearly technically possible - iAds can use it!

gress 13y ago
That's because they aren't satisfied that it's secure enough for the open web yet and they don't want to expose their users to risks they can't protect themselves from.