| > How is Web Bluetooth an evil agenda of Google?? Never said it was, notice how in the thing you quoted I said "Topics API"? That is extremely evil and was only introduced to benefit a single company, Google. I never made a claim that every single thing on this list that safari does not support is a negative. > IE was the first to implement XMLHTTPRequest. It changed the web fundamentally, and was the basis for "web 2.0". Fantastic, that is an example of things working as they are supposed to work. However IE also introduced things that were not made standard just as equally we celebrated that those things failed. > If we didn't have browser manufacturers pushing the limits, we'd be stuck with "web 1.0" and browsers that did nothing interesting outside of loading animated gifs of dancing babyies. Obviously that is true or the companies would not be involved in W3C. But that does not mean that every idea they introduce is necessary in a browser and deserves to be a standard feature. Google alone cannot and should dictate a standard, even though apparently we are fine with them attempting to do just that. If everyone is in agreement instead of it benefiting a single company. > The only one that benefits from not allowing it to become a standard is Apple I would like to point out, once again. That this feature is also not available on Firefox for Android or Desktop. Your argument does not support why Mozilla has not implemented this feature. Which again, makes the "Apple bad" spin on this not as cut and dry. |
They did not "dictate a standard". They saw a good use case for an API and made one for it (Web Bluetooth is what I'm really focused on). If the other W3C members want changes made, then they can make suggestions, and Google or someone else can implement the changes. They can even implement their own API and have a discussion about that. Then they can put their heads together and come up with a spec everyone agrees on. That is how it normally works. Nobody "dictates" as you suggest.
Apple is flat out refusing to let Web Bluetooth move forward based on "Security rEaSoNs", and they are just shutting down the entire feature set.
Where is the security risk when users have to explicitly opt-in to use the feature? I'm sorry if your grandma clicks yes to everything, but blocking my users from the entire feature because your grandma lost her mind years ago is asinine. There is no real security threat posed by Web Bluetooth and I'd love to see you argue how there is when plenty of other existing APIs already ask for permission before you can use them. Fingerprinting can be done in a lot of other ways.
But the real crux of the problem is Apple not allowing other browser engines on their iOS platform. If that changed, I wouldn't care what one company implements or blocks in the W3C.
>I would like to point out, once again. That this feature is also not available on Firefox for Android or Desktop.
I don't care at all what Firefox does or doesn't want. Neither do most people. Firefox also does not block other browser engines from running on iOS, so people are free not to use it. Unfortunately we're not free to use the browser engines we want on iOS.