[slightlyoff]

That's simply a misunderstanding of how features come to the web. There is no immaculate conception for web APIs. No magical room in which they are dreamt up, or spring fully-formed from the head of Zeus.

Instead, they come from open, honest, iterative design (when done well), and shipping ahead of others is risky, but that's why we designed the Blink Launch Process to demand so much pre-work (specs, tests, origin trials, good faith attempts to include other vendors in design, etc.) in order to launch that way.

Some background on these points here:

https://infrequently.org/series/effective-standards-work/

https://youtu.be/1Z83L6xa1tw?si=939PBH4_idtZGI6Y

As to, "should Apple follow Chromium's lead", perhaps ask "how would that be different than today?"

See:

https://infrequently.org/2023/02/safari-16-4-is-an-admission...

And:

https://infrequently.org/2025/06/the-ghost-of-christmas-past...

[wtallis]

You're still dodging the issue. Your article title accusing Apple of an "assault on standards" is implicitly treating Google's proposals as a fait accompli that Apple is resisting, which is not at all what the situation is for many of the Chrome features you are trying not to be specific about.

You say that shipping ahead of others is risky, but can't seem to acknowledge when the negative outcome comes to pass and other browser vendors aren't interested in adopting questionable feature proposals.

[slightlyoff]

I'm simply pointing out that Apple declined to try to constructively solve the problems developers expressed, demurred from engaging in design work in many areas, and did not ship alternatives instead (as it could have, and did in the past when Safari/WebKit were not on a starvation budget).

The downsides to this are not lost on me. Why do you think I'm making an issue of it publicly now? We tried literally everything else. This is last resort stuff. The goal is always more collaboration, and through it, better, better-funded, and more capable browsers. Apple is the unique obstacle to all of that today.

[wtallis]

Please consider the possibility that some proposed features should not exist. The objections to many of Chrome's features are fundamental, not aesthetic, or complaints about nuances of how it's implemented. Many people outside Google simply do not want the browser to be a full-fledged OS, especially if that means weakening privacy or security controls of the host OS.

Sometimes, the right response to a feature proposal is simply "no". But you're seemingly unwilling to accept that as a valid answer. The alternative you're not seeing is that of not having the dubious features in the browser.

[cnst]

But those features do exist as long as you're willing to pay Apple's tax.

I feel like that's already explained in the originally linked article here.

If you don't want Bluetooth from your browser, you can always install Firefox on Android.

I feel like it's 2005, and you're arguing that web browsers should not have access to a camera.

Or is camera access by a web browser still not a standard today in 2025, either, thanks to Apple, I may guess?

[cnst]

Or let me tell you as a Firefox user on macOS.

I'd much rather have to switch to Brave or Vivaldi for a video phone call, or keyboard configuration, or NFC, than install half a dozen of outdated third-party XXX-only apps with full permissions and questionable security practices or distribution methods.

The better question to ask here, is, why would you NOT want to have a CHOICE to have these things in a secure browser by SEVERAL distinct major vendors like Google, Microsoft, Brave and Vivaldi, and Yandex, and Opera, and others?

Again, I don't even use Chrome. I replace it even on Android. So, I am not concerned with Google taking me over, because they clearly aren't.

But how am I more secure when I have to install lots of dodgy apps to get the most basic things like video conferencing working?