[kelthuzad]

>> And Apple purposely will never implement lots of APIs that only their native apps allow (which other browsers implement)

>Can you give an example?

Web Bluetooth, Web USB, Web NFC, Web Serial...

Of course Apple will uphold its usual charade to claim that it's about pRiVacy & sEcuRiTy to maintain plausible deniability. They could easily implement it and keep it disabled by default, such that users could make the conscious choice to enable it or keep it disabled. Any adequate analysis of Apple's behavior and motivations must mention Apple's conflict of interest, because Apple will be biased against technology that could diminish the value proposition of "native" apps which Apple has been taxing so unchallenged for all these years.

[troupo]

> Web Bluetooth, Web USB, Web NFC, Web Serial

Chrome-only non-standards. Note that Firefox is against these, too.

> Any adequate analysis of Apple's behavior and motivations must mention Apple's conflict of interest

I've yet to see an adequate analysis that doesn't pretend that anything Chrome shits, sorry, ships is immediately a standard that must absolutely be implemented by everyone immediately.

[kelthuzad]

You're right that Firefox also opposes some of these specific implementations in its current form, and that Google often rushes features. However, that doesn't diminish Apple's conflict of interest at all, so sometimes their arguments happen to align with reality just as a broken clock is correct twice a day. Apple applies many double standards e.g. they allow native apps to access these hardware features (where they happen to collect a 30% tax) but block the Web from doing the same (where they collect 0%). If privacy was the only concern, they would work on a safe standard, but instead they block the capability entirely to ensure that any of the App Store's rivals remain constrained and thus inferior such that the App Store's revenue isn't threatened.

[troupo]

> You're right that Firefox also opposes some of these specific implementations in its current form, and that Google often rushes features. However, that doesn't diminish Apple's conflict of interest at all

Funny how you agree that Firefox opposes these non-standards, and how Google rushes things. And immediately turn around and basically say "no-no-no, Apple is to blame and Safari (and, by extension Firefox) must absolutely implement these non-standard features from Chrome".

The rest of demagoguery is irrelevant.

BTW literally the moment Firefox relented and implemented WebMIDI they had originally opposed, they immediately ran into tracking/fingerprinting attempts using WebMIDI that Chrome just couldn't care less about.

[kelthuzad]

>Funny how you agree that Firefox opposes these non-standards, and how Google rushes things. And immediately turn around and basically say "no-no-no, Apple is to blame and Safari (and, by extension Firefox) must absolutely implement these non-standard features from Chrome".

There is nothing "funny" about me acknowledging facts, that's what a reasonable person should always do, try it. What's not funny though, is how you're butchering and misrepresenting my arguments to such a gross degree. I've never stated that everybody "must implement these non-standard features from Chrome", instead I've made a much more nuanced argument about how Apple's conflict of interest is motivating them to reject entire feature sets for competing technology instead of helping to implement a safe standard, which is indicative of their bad faith motivations. That anti-competitive strategy has been essential for Apple in collecting billions in app taxes by systematically hobbling any competition before it can emerge.

>BTW literally the moment Firefox relented and implemented WebMIDI they had originally opposed, they immediately ran into tracking/fingerprinting attempts using WebMIDI that Chrome just couldn't care less about.

So? Just as native apps give users certain freedoms that can have problematic aspects, web apps should have _equal rights_ and be able to play on a level playing field. The choice and freedom should be the users' and not that of Apple's finance division. None of this gives Apple the right to uphold its anti-competitive strategy with its corporate double speak. And the fact that you're so hyperfocused on specifics while failing to grasp the broader argument, so you can cheerlead for Apple's anti-competitive behavior, is revealing a clear bias.

[troupo]

> Apple's conflict of interest is motivating them to reject entire feature sets for competing technology instead of helping to implement a safe standard

It literally is "everyone must immediately implement anything Chrome shits out". You don't even accept the fact that both Safari and Firefox team reject the entire premise on the same grounds.

Nope. "They must work on better standards for these features that Chrome ships".

> The choice and freedom should be the users' and not that of Apple's finance division.

Funny how in the paragraph you respond to I didn't mention Apple once.

> And the fact that you're so hyperfocused on specifics while failing to grasp the broader argument

There's no broader argument. You literally dismiss Firefox as irrelevant [1], assume that whatever Chrome ships is good, and assumes that Apple is both a bad actor driven entirely by money an must implement whatever Chrome comes up with (under the guise of "should work to implement a safe standard").

[1] Their position on these Chrome features is literally the same as Apple's https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/

[leptons]

It literally is "everyone must immediately not implement anything that cuts into Apple's bottom line"

Apple has veto power over what becomes web standards now. If they didn't abuse that power, and also forbid other browser engines on iOS, then there wouldn't be a problem. They abuse their power in a way that hurts everyone but Apple, and the DOJ took notice.

You say Firefox doesn't implement the same APIs that Apple won't as proof of something, but Opera and other browsers do implement those APIs, so that really cancells out whatever argument you thought you had.

Back in the day, Microsoft invented XMLHTTPRequest, and if Apple had veto power over web standards back then, the web might still be "Web 1.0", hypothetically speaking.

But now Apple can block progress in web browsers now, and the DOJ will likely prove that they are abusing their position to the detriment of everyone that uses a web browser, so Apple can make a few more dollars from their app store.

It should not be so difficult for anyone to understand.

[kelthuzad]

>It literally is "everyone must immediately implement anything Chrome shits out". You don't even accept the fact that both Safari and Firefox team reject the entire premise on the same grounds.

It isn't factually and certainly not "literally" that. I've explicitly stated that the problem isn't the rejection of the specific implementation in its current form, but the wholesale refusal of features to deny rival technology equal rights, instead of helping to implement a safe standard. That is evidence of Apple's bad faith motivation to hobble competing technology in favor of their App Store tax funnel. You consistently refuse to understand this and resort to deflecting from and distorting that fact.

>There's no broader argument.

There is, it's the one you've been deflecting and distracting from, because it refutes your biased talking points completely.

>You literally dismiss Firefox as irrelevant [1][1] Their position on these Chrome features is literally the same as Apple's https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/

No I don't. You're literally making stuff up and ignoring the fact that I have actually even started my response with an acknowledgement of that point: "You're right that Firefox also opposes some of these specific implementations in its current form, and that Google often rushes features. However, that doesn't diminish Apple's conflict of interest at all, so sometimes their arguments happen to align with reality just as a broken clock is correct twice a day." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46457938

>and assumes that Apple is both a bad actor driven entirely by money an must implement whatever Chrome comes up with

There is no such assumption, only the fact that Apple has a conflict of interest, which manifests itself in anti-competitive behavior, for which I've provided documented evidence. I've also never stated that they "must implement whatever Chrome comes up with", that's a gross misrepresentation, which you are stubbornly repeating, despite me having refuted it several times now. Your bias in this matter couldn't be more obvious, due to your dedication to distorting any evidence that refutes Apple's propaganda narrative, so you keep blindly repeating the same tired and old talking points despite evidence to the contrary.

[xp84]

Are the Chrome features useful? Are they open? If it’s bad for users (e.g. some new ad tracking) or if it’s proprietary and thus expensive to license or reverse engineer that’s one thing, but if it’s not that, then refusing to ever adopt those standards (or to provide their own alternatives) is either foolish NIH syndrome on Apple’s part or it’s greed.

[troupo]

> If it’s bad for users (e.g. some new ad tracking)

Yes

> but if it’s not that, then refusing to ever adopt those standards (or to provide their own alternatives) is either foolish NIH syndrome on Apple’s part or it’s greed.

Note that Firefox's position is literally exactly the same as Apple's on these Chrome-only features: https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/

[leptons]

Firefox gets paid by Google. A lot. Maybe part of their agreement is to not implement some features because it would compete with Chrome. I don't really know, and I don't really care what Firefox does or doesn't do. I only care that Apple does not allow other browsers to use their own browser engines. Opera mobile also implements the APIs I need (on Android). Even MS Edge supports the APIs. Firefox can join Apple in being lame, I don't really care.

[troupo]

"Every browser that doesn't jump when Google says 'jump' is driven by malicious actors and intent that I can't articulate beyond some tin-foil conspiracy theories" is not as good an argument as you think it is

[leptons]

I really don't care what browsers do or don't implement. I only care that Apple doesn't allow other browsers to use their own browser engines on iOS. That's it, that's all, and it also got notice from the DOJ, which is one of many reasons Apple is getting sued by the DOJ.

Until Apple lets other browser engines on iOS, they are behaving like greedy tyrants.