[troupo]

> One example: a while ago I worked on a bluetooth le based companion app for industrial sensors. The client would absolutely have built this as a web app if iOS had offered web bluetooth. With alternative engines

Do you know that the only "alternative egnine" that implements hardware APIs is Chrome? Because it's a Chrome-only non-standard that Firefox opposes, too?

[p_l]

As someone who long supportedy Firefox over Chrome...

I wish Firefox had WebBluetooth or another API that could do that.

But then Mozilla instead of helping set codec standards that everyone could use preferredyto show you could run codec in JS and opened a way for EME

[troupo]

Bluetooth is not a codec.

EME has nothing to do with Bluetooth.

[p_l]

And codecs and EME were examples of attitude, not about Bluetooth...

[fifafu]

Well on desktop Chrome/Edge has a high enough market share that the client would not have cared.

I don’t think Apple can tell alternative browser engines what features it will allow and which not. Or is there something in the EU regulation that says browser engines must follow a standard?

[troupo]

> Well on desktop Chrome/Edge has a high enough market share that the client would not have cared.

Indeed. People cry "Safari is the new IE" and then literally turn around and say "well, who cares, Chrome has dominant market share, so if it only works in Chrome, it's fine".

[smoldesu]

You need a competitive browser if you want to convince people to use it. Apple's only distribution scheme for Safari is forcibly pre-installing it on all of their devices. It's not akin to Chrome or Firefox where people deliberately install their app and weigh it against alternatives. You don't get a choice.

As a reminder, United States v. Microsoft Corp. was never about IE's market share. It was about the illegal monopoly manipulation of Windows to prevent third-party browsers from competing. With that in mind, Safari absolutely could be the next IE.

[troupo]

> You need a competitive browser if you want to convince people to use it.

The argument may have worked 10-15 years ago. Since then Chrome has captured majority market share (among other things deploying, clear anticompetitive practices [1]). They now dominate all the standards bodies and shit all over the standards process by shipping whatever they damn please to the sycophantic cheering from the sidelines.

So it's not "you need a competitive browser", because both Safari and Firefox are plenty competitive. It's "you need to ship whatever features Chrome ships at neck-breaking speed, all consequences be damned".

[1] Former Mozilla exec on Google sabotaging Firefox https://archive.is/tgIH9

The story of how Google drove the final nail in IE6's coffin is funny until you let the implications set in https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/4/18529381/google-youtube-in... And yes, "only works in Chrome" is a frequent enough appearance to warrant a worry.

[smoldesu]

> It's "you need to ship whatever features Chrome ships at neck-breaking speed, all consequences be damned".

Given that Chrome isn't shipping ActiveX or Flash, what's the issue? Apple and Mozilla decide how (or if) they want to implement each standard. If there's no demand for the feature, it shouldn't be a problem ignoring it. If icky features like WebUSB and Bluetooth are terrible, users won't notice anyways.

I've daily-drove Firefox for close to 5 years now, but Chromium is simply better-developed in a lot of ways. It integrates better on Linux and doesn't ship with annoying adware that nags you with pop-up modals. I don't want Google's browser engine to be the best, but I don't think I'd be using Firefox today even ignoring compatibility concerns. Safari isn't even an option to me, not that I'd willingly pick WebKit anyways.

> And yes, "only works in Chrome" is a frequent enough appearance to warrant a worry.

Crocodile tears coming from an ecosystem where "only works on iOS" and "only works on Mac" is the default. Apple is not the savior of the free web, and if the openness of the internet relies on their goodwill then it is already lost.

Google's strategy is pressuring Apple to make more capable software. When a user has more freedom in a browser than they do in their hardware's native runtime, something is gravely wrong (and you can't blame the browser).

[troupo]

> Given that Chrome isn't shipping ActiveX or Flash, what's the issue?

What does this have to do with what I wrote? Literally nothing

> Apple and Mozilla decide how (or if) they want to implement each standard.

For something to become a standard there needs to be consensus, and at least two independent implementations.

Just because Chrome ships something doesn't make it a standard.

> If there's no demand for the feature, it shouldn't be a problem ignoring it. If icky features like WebUSB and Bluetooth are terrible, users won't notice anyways.

Neither WebUSB nor Bluetooth are standards. There status is literally, and I quote, "It is not a W3C Standard nor is it on the W3C Standards Track. "

> Google's strategy is pressuring Apple to make more capable software.

That's not Google's strategy, and never has been. It's also quite telling you decided to ignore Google's clear anti competitive practices. I guess by sabotaging Firefox they were also "pressuring Firefox into making more capable software or something".

It amazes me to no end that Apple/Safari haters will contort themselves to no end to justify Google because Chrome can do no wrong.

> When a user has more freedom in a browser than they do in their hardware's native runtime

Google couldn't care less about the end user. All Google cares about is its dominance. To that end it doesn't care if it breaks the web [1], or twists it to their liking [2]

[1] Speaking of breaking: Breaking the Web forward https://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2021/08/breaking_th... and Stay Alert https://dev.to/richharris/stay-alert-d but you will ignore these, too. Because it's not "ActiveX or Flash", innit?

[2] People keep mentioning sites like https://whatwebcando.today/ and https://whatpwacando.today/ and they are filled to the brim with APIs that Chrome ships and whose status is "not on any standards track".

[szasamasa]

is it not chromium, because Chromium browser, Edge, Brave, Opera, Vivaldi, Yandex, Samsung etc... (and Google Chrome) all use the open source chromium engine

only safari and firefox did not implement it according to: https://caniuse.com/?search=web%20bluetooth

which might be great because you have the choice...

and you can use open source chromium or brave (like the jvm to run cross platform java) to run web apps seemlessly that need web bluetooth or such but use safari or firefox for personal use if you find them more secure

I mean using chromium engine as the running environment where chromium only ever runs special trusted web domains and never goes to other "malicious" web domains that may fuck up iOS as Apple claims would be still a secure choice

like you will not download spyware from Apple Store because you are an adult not because Apple can protect you there

[troupo]

> because Chromium browser, Edge, Brave, Opera, Vivaldi, Yandex, Samsung etc... (and Google Chrome) all use the open source chromium engine

Ah yes. Browsers with near-zero market share (aside from Edge which hovers around 4% market share) that have literally no say in how the engine they are using is developed, and what features go into it.

You know how I know that? Because Google themselves admit it's a problem: https://twitter.com/RickByers/status/1715568535731155100 The largest contributor to Chrome that is not Google is none of those browsers and is barely above 1% of all Google contributions.