4 ms·

Absolutely agreed. They want the web to lose.

jenscow 11y ago
Hence it being the new IE.
Tloewald 11y ago
Absolutely disagree. Apple wants to make the best experience for users because then they'll keep buying Apple products. If users want the web, then they make the browser better. If Apps are more appropriate, then they make apps better. Apple prioritizes stuff users care about -- battery life > IndexedDB, accessibility > WebGL. Until you understand this and stop thinking like a conspiracy theorist, you won't understand Apple and will keep confusing your priorities with user priorities. Again: pleasing users -> profit. Making web lose -> ??? This isn't "embrace and extend" -- Microsoft added huge swathes of proprietary functionality to IE and tended (and tends) to prioritize developer and corporate IT desires over users. Insofar as Apple extends the browser, they do it through standards and proposed standards and (mostly) open source the implementations.
- vdaniuk 11y ago
  Apple wants to make the best experience for users while maintaining vendor lock-in. iOS users invest hundreds of dollars in apps and games and enjoy exclusive products. This creates a very significant barrier to switch to another mobile platform. Quite obviously increased switching costs for users are important for iOS to maintain leadership in platform wars. Therefore, rapid advancement of web apps user experience to the level of native apps in some categories would be detrimental to Apple's competitive positions. Making web lose -> stronger competitive advantage.
  - Tloewald 11y ago
    Making web lose -> make users unhappy in short (and probably long) term, damage Apple's reputation in long term It's totally awesome how Google created its Play store so that it seamlessly works on competing platforms -- after all it's a largely open-source stack that would easily run on (say) iPhones. No wait, they use it as a bludgeon to keep third parties in line (and create vendor lock-in).
    - vdaniuk 11y ago
      > Making web lose -> make users unhappy in short term Sure, it decreases user satisfaction for a SUBSET of users, who care about web apps. This subset seems to be strategically negligible for Apple. This is a trade-off which is absolutely rational from the shareholders/management perspective. >It's totally awesome how Google created its Play store so that it seamlessly works on competing platforms Your fanboyism shows. This thread is not about Google, also a corporation which actions are driven by interests of management and shareholders.
      - Tloewald 11y ago
        Ah yes, pointing out that your anti-Apple arguments are just as easily applied to Chrome/Google, Firefox/Mozilla, or IE/Microsoft makes me a fanboy. It's like Betteridge's Law for discussions involving Apple.
    - wstrange 11y ago
      Correct me if I am wrong, but how could Google ever create a play store for Apple iOS devices? Doesn't Apple forbid that?
      - Tloewald 11y ago
        Non android badge android devices are my point.
- Touche 11y ago
  Can you explain how fixing IndexedDB bugs hurts battery life? Can you explain how WebRTC hurts battery life?
  - etchalon 11y ago
    It doesn't hurt battery life. It just takes engineering hours away from working on battery life.
    - jessaustin 11y ago
      But that argument can justify any deficiency in Safari, so it's unconvincing. Eventually you're just saying, "Apple don't care about all these new web things." Which is the point of TFA.
      - Tloewald 11y ago
        How so? Let's suppose Safari has some horrible bug in it that exposes users to malware or whatever. (And it has had from time to time and Apple has been rightly pilloried for some of these cases.) Tell me how saying that Apple would rather improve user experience than add developer-friendly features justifies this.
        jessaustin 11y ago
        Different people will draw the line at different places. To you, the hypothetical malware vuln should be fixed before e.g. improving battery life by 5%. To some other user who is on a long plane journey without a power adapter and doesn't e.g. click on .flv links on specialty forums, maybe it shouldn't. But to a greedy fruit executive who wants the web to be insecure? There's no question! b^) This thread explores the possibility that, for strategic reasons, new web stuff is not implemented on Safari. That proposition is scarcely undermined by hypothesizing a typical user who doesn't care about new web stuff as much as she cares about battery life. She's hypothetical, why should she care about anything as much as she cares about battery life?
kalleboo 11y ago
If Apple really wanted to make Web Apps feel like a second class citizen, they wouldn't be adding Force Touch, custom AirPlay control support and Picture In Picture support to the upcoming version of Safari. Those are deep, native app level features that aren't even Web standards yet. I assume Apple is underinvesting in safari simply because they have bigger fish to fry, and they are notoriously understaffed with competent engineers (or have bad project management).
- criswell 11y ago
  They're adding APIs that only benefit people using their hardware. Unless they open source AirPlay and whatever else they need to do for Force Touch I'm failing to see why I should be excited by that.

Hence it being the new IE.

Absolutely disagree. Apple wants to make the best experience for users because then they'll keep buying Apple products. If users want the web, then they make the browser better. If Apps are more appropriate, then they make apps better. Apple prioritizes stuff users care about -- battery life > IndexedDB, accessibility > WebGL. Until you understand this and stop thinking like a conspiracy theorist, you won't understand Apple and will keep confusing your priorities with user priorities. Again: pleasing users -> profit. Making web lose -> ??? This isn't "embrace and extend" -- Microsoft added huge swathes of proprietary functionality to IE and tended (and tends) to prioritize developer and corporate IT desires over users. Insofar as Apple extends the browser, they do it through standards and proposed standards and (mostly) open source the implementations.

vdaniuk 11y ago
Apple wants to make the best experience for users while maintaining vendor lock-in. iOS users invest hundreds of dollars in apps and games and enjoy exclusive products. This creates a very significant barrier to switch to another mobile platform. Quite obviously increased switching costs for users are important for iOS to maintain leadership in platform wars. Therefore, rapid advancement of web apps user experience to the level of native apps in some categories would be detrimental to Apple's competitive positions. Making web lose -> stronger competitive advantage.
- Tloewald 11y ago
  Making web lose -> make users unhappy in short (and probably long) term, damage Apple's reputation in long term It's totally awesome how Google created its Play store so that it seamlessly works on competing platforms -- after all it's a largely open-source stack that would easily run on (say) iPhones. No wait, they use it as a bludgeon to keep third parties in line (and create vendor lock-in).
  - vdaniuk 11y ago
    > Making web lose -> make users unhappy in short term Sure, it decreases user satisfaction for a SUBSET of users, who care about web apps. This subset seems to be strategically negligible for Apple. This is a trade-off which is absolutely rational from the shareholders/management perspective. >It's totally awesome how Google created its Play store so that it seamlessly works on competing platforms Your fanboyism shows. This thread is not about Google, also a corporation which actions are driven by interests of management and shareholders.
    - Tloewald 11y ago
      Ah yes, pointing out that your anti-Apple arguments are just as easily applied to Chrome/Google, Firefox/Mozilla, or IE/Microsoft makes me a fanboy. It's like Betteridge's Law for discussions involving Apple.
  - wstrange 11y ago
    Correct me if I am wrong, but how could Google ever create a play store for Apple iOS devices? Doesn't Apple forbid that?
    - Tloewald 11y ago
      Non android badge android devices are my point.
Touche 11y ago
Can you explain how fixing IndexedDB bugs hurts battery life? Can you explain how WebRTC hurts battery life?
- etchalon 11y ago
  It doesn't hurt battery life. It just takes engineering hours away from working on battery life.
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    But that argument can justify any deficiency in Safari, so it's unconvincing. Eventually you're just saying, "Apple don't care about all these new web things." Which is the point of TFA.
    - Tloewald 11y ago
      How so? Let's suppose Safari has some horrible bug in it that exposes users to malware or whatever. (And it has had from time to time and Apple has been rightly pilloried for some of these cases.) Tell me how saying that Apple would rather improve user experience than add developer-friendly features justifies this.
      - jessaustin 11y ago
        Different people will draw the line at different places. To you, the hypothetical malware vuln should be fixed before e.g. improving battery life by 5%. To some other user who is on a long plane journey without a power adapter and doesn't e.g. click on .flv links on specialty forums, maybe it shouldn't. But to a greedy fruit executive who wants the web to be insecure? There's no question! b^) This thread explores the possibility that, for strategic reasons, new web stuff is not implemented on Safari. That proposition is scarcely undermined by hypothesizing a typical user who doesn't care about new web stuff as much as she cares about battery life. She's hypothetical, why should she care about anything as much as she cares about battery life?

kalleboo 11y ago

If Apple really wanted to make Web Apps feel like a second class citizen, they wouldn't be adding Force Touch, custom AirPlay control support and Picture In Picture support to the upcoming version of Safari. Those are deep, native app level features that aren't even Web standards yet. I assume Apple is underinvesting in safari simply because they have bigger fish to fry, and they are notoriously understaffed with competent engineers (or have bad project management).

criswell 11y ago
They're adding APIs that only benefit people using their hardware. Unless they open source AirPlay and whatever else they need to do for Force Touch I'm failing to see why I should be excited by that.