5 ms·

"Apple has shown no interest" Um, that's an assertion, without which the rest of the piece makes no sense. I would have expected a little evidence to back the

"Apple has shown no interest" Um, that's an assertion, without which the rest of the piece makes no sense. I would have expected a little evidence to back the assertion up, or are we all supposed to get our pitchforks out on Tim's say-so? That being said, let's assume that Tim is actually right, and that Apple are being capricious and trying to hold back the Web, because they can. Apple are within their rights to decide to not implement a standards-proposed API. If that API is the greatest thing since sliced bread, web developers will start using it, and Apple will be forced to follow suit or be left behind. If that API is rejected by web developers, then why should Apple waste time implementing it? Obviously if Apple throw their weight behind an API, that makes developer support much more likely, but I don't see why they should be obliged to expend resources championing an API they don't like, and which is not yet being used by developers. Let browser implementers that see the value in the API do the experimental work, and if it turns out to be popular, Apple can follow along later. I don't see that anybody is being harmed or "stifled" by such a course of action.

kevincennis 12y ago
> Um, that's an assertion, without which the rest of the piece makes no sense. I would have expected a little evidence to back the assertion up... How, exactly, would you expect the OP to present evidence of Apple not showing interest? What would that "evidence" look like? I can't provide evidence that my golden retriever doesn't have an advanced understanding of quantum mechanics, but I don't think that would get him a job at CERN.
- lordbusiness 12y ago
  The parent makes a solid point, and you're employing this logical fallacy, which is why I am down voting you.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule
  - heinrich5991 12y ago
    Say what's wrong, but don't call it "that fallacy". Those "appeals to fallacies" are really what destroys useful Internet discussions.
  - gwern 12y ago
    Ridicule is not what he's appealing to, rather, the basic evidential principle that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
  - csixty4 12y ago
    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
sly010 12y ago
It's not in Apples interest to advance the web. They want less web and more native. Unfortunately. No one will use a standard that's not available for 30% of the users, the point is to unify things, not to make yet another useless standard. Also unfortunately. So we like it or not, Apples participation is kind of important here. I would risk that its more important than the quality of the standard itself.

kevincennis 12y ago

> Um, that's an assertion, without which the rest of the piece makes no sense. I would have expected a little evidence to back the assertion up... How, exactly, would you expect the OP to present evidence of Apple not showing interest? What would that "evidence" look like? I can't provide evidence that my golden retriever doesn't have an advanced understanding of quantum mechanics, but I don't think that would get him a job at CERN.

lordbusiness 12y ago
The parent makes a solid point, and you're employing this logical fallacy, which is why I am down voting you.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule
- heinrich5991 12y ago
  Say what's wrong, but don't call it "that fallacy". Those "appeals to fallacies" are really what destroys useful Internet discussions.
- gwern 12y ago
  Ridicule is not what he's appealing to, rather, the basic evidential principle that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
- csixty4 12y ago
  https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

sly010 12y ago

It's not in Apples interest to advance the web. They want less web and more native. Unfortunately. No one will use a standard that's not available for 30% of the users, the point is to unify things, not to make yet another useless standard. Also unfortunately. So we like it or not, Apples participation is kind of important here. I would risk that its more important than the quality of the standard itself.