The third column is your current browser and platform, and for me it's showing Firefox on macOS missing a lot of features. When I switch over to Brave, I see Chrome on macOS. Interestingly, Chrome on macOS apparently supports vibration, despite the hardware for it being nonexistent.
But on macOS you can switch to a browser that can do all these things. A company could ask you to use a different browser (not ideal, but if the web app requires a specific API, it's not an unreasonable).
Safari is in a very special position because it controls what the web can do on iOS (all browsers on iOS have to use Apple's WebKit engine, they can't add web features). Apple is not just gatekeeping native (through the app store), but its competition, too (the open web, through the webkit requirement)
If you ask me to run a different browser, if at all possible I’m going to use a more reasonable competitor instead. I’m not about to return to the bad old days of sites badgering me to install IE because the dev thought it was a great idea to use ActiveX or whatever.
I'm not trying to defend Apple's decisions, I'm merely pointing out that the site is showing the feature support that Firefox has or doesn't have on macOS, or whatever other platform someone is using to access the site.
No, because any browser can decide to ship a feature that it thinks is worthwhile. Users can decide which browser they trust to be their User Agent. The distribution model is open. You type a URL, you click a link. No single company in control.
> No, because any browser can decide to ship a feature that it thinks is worthwhile.
Yes, yes they can. They don't get to call it standard or essential. And Chrome-shilling sites like the pwa.gripe and a slew of others don't get to call those features "essential standards of the web".
> No single company in control.
That is literally not how standards work in the browser world by literal agreement of all browser vendors.
We literally lived through this with IE pushing its own non-standard features and calling it a day. Hence the whole "let's reach a consensus, and have several independent implementations of a feature before calling it a standard".
And if "no single company is in control", why then you're so enthusiastically pushing for a Google's full control of the web?
While true, that does not seem to align with what the checkboxes for firefox, looking at many of the ones that Safari does not support other non chromium browsers don't support on any OS. Mobile or not
The difference is that, on iOS, you can't switch to a different browser that does support these features. Om very other OS you can.
A web app could ask you to use a different browser (not ideal, but if the web app requires a specific API, it's not an unreasonable).
Safari is in a very special position because it controls what the web can do on iOS (all browsers on iOS have to use Apple's WebKit engine, they can't add web features). Apple is not just gatekeeping native (through the app store), but its competition, too (the open web, through the webkit requirement)
True, but putting aside that limitation on iOS for a moment.
The very important part about this is whether or not these features are actually considered a web standard or is it Google pushing their own agenda.
Which is where whether or not any non chromium browser supports any of these on any platform. Which many of these features they don't.
That completely changes the conversation here, from Apple purposefully ignoring standards to Google pushing things that are not standards yet. Which I will admit that the reality is a bit of both here, but it should not be considered a negative when a browser does not support a feature that is non standard... we heavily criticized IE for exactly this and yet we celebrate Chrome for it?
>The very important part about this is whether or not these features are actually considered a web standard or is it Google pushing their own agenda.
Apple is on the W3C board that gets to decide what APIs become standards, so Apple is definitely pushing their own agenda on the W3C.
So you can't really complain that Google is pushing their own agenda with these APIs when Apple is the one refusing to make them a standard. In this case, Apple is the one doing shady shit by holding back things like web bluetooth for no good reason. No, "security" is not a reason, this API has been in use on other platforms for a very long time with no real security issues.
There are lots of other standard APIs that have been implemented, but Apple refused to let the ones that eat into their app store go forward.
>we heavily criticized IE for exactly this and yet we celebrate Chrome for it?
I remember when IE implemented XMLHTTPRequest, and it did a lot of good for the web.
I also remember when Microsoft got an antitrust case for simply bundling IE with Windows, yet Apple seems to get a pass for forbidding all other browser engines on iOS? Well, fortunately Apple has its own antitrust case in the DOJ now for its own abusive business tactics.
Google is also involved in W3C and do I really need to bring up the topics API as Google attempting to use their position to push their agenda as well?
We really need to stop putting google on a pedestal as if they are truelly on the side of an open web, like every company they are looking out for their own interests. Which is fine, they are allowed to do this.
That doesn't change that many of these are in fact not a standard according to W3C and should not be implemented in any browser until it is. A discussion about why it may not be standard is worth it, but that is also a very important distinction that is not made on this page. Right now it is framing it as google supports a standard that the other's (including Firefox) do not.
Just because Google does something it doesn't mean the rest of the industry should follow. If we did that in IE days we would still have ActiveX
> many of these are in fact not a standard according to W3C and should not be implemented in any browser until it is.
That's not exactly how standards work. A browser (or anyone) comes up with a spec, a browser can ship it (to test the waters in an origin-trial, to gain traction if they believe in it), and the standard (often) comes after the fact:
"Working Groups don't gate what browsers ship, nor do they define what's useful or worthy. [...] In practice, they are thoughtful historians of recent design expeditions, critiquing, tweaking, then spreading the good news of proposals that already work through Web Standards ratified years after features first ship, serving to licence designs liberally to increase their spread."
> A browser (or anyone) comes up with a spec, a browser can ship it (to test the waters in an origin-trial, to gain traction if they believe in it), and the standard (often) comes after the fact:
1. Google often doesn't bother even with a spec. Or it creates a semblance of a spec, throws it up on a googler's Github account, ships it and advertises it as "emergin standard" on web.dev
I mean, the status of many (if not most) of the APIs that these sites push are literally "napkin scribble, not on any standards track".
2. Google pushes a lot of APIs quickly into production even if there's a very explicit open objection from other browser vendors (any objections are routinely ignored: from general objections to the shape of APIs to whether it can even be implemented outside Chrome).
3. I wouldn't really quote Alex Russel on anything related to standards, as he is responsible (directly or indirectly) for quite a few of those because of his work on Web Components. E.g. Constructable Stylesheets were shipped in Chrome because Google's own lit project needed them. They shipped it in production when the design contained a trivially triggered race condition, it was called out, and Google completely ignored it because "users want it" or something.
4. Browser vendors quite literally agreed not push incompatible only-exists-in-one-browser shit after the browser wars. The whole standards process is designed to minimize this. Well, Chrome is the dominant browser, so of course they shit all over the process, and quite a few people cheer them for that.
Internet Explorer in the 2000s: shits out a bunch of own non-standard crap, people boo them
Chrome in the 2010s-2020s: shits out a bunch of own non-standard crap, people cheer and blame other browsers for not implementing this crap because... Google is "the champion of open web" or some such bullshit.
3. So what, bugs can be fixed. It's nowhere near as abusive as what Apple does by forcing Safari on every iOS browser.
4. You think the "browser wars" are over? Apple's actions clearly indicate the war is on, and they've selected the nuclear option of forbidding any other browser on their platform.
>Internet Explorer in the 2000s: shits out a bunch of own non-standard crap, people boo them
Did people "boo" XMLHTTPRequest? Because it actually revolutionized the web, and people cheered it.
When you deliberately ignore what Google is doing, every view that is not praising Google's take over of the web is skewed.
> So what, bugs can be fixed.
No. Not on the web they can't. Once it's shipped, people depend on the functionality. That is why we're stuck with so many crappy unfixable APIs in the platform.
> Did people "boo" XMLHTTPRequest? Because it actually revolutionized the web, and people cheered it.
And yet, they didn't cheer ActiveX. For some reason you assume that every single API Google pushes out is XHR, and not ActiveX
>every view that is not praising Google's take over of the web is skewed
I am not praising Google. I'm simply pointing out that Apple is using abusive business tactics to prevent any competition. It's antitrust territory, and the DOJ agrees. I don't care which browser implements the APIs I need to access, so long as one of them does.
>No. Not on the web they can't. Once it's shipped, people depend on the functionality. That is why we're stuck with so many crappy unfixable APIs in the platform.
Just more skewed nonsense. This can and have been fixed on the web. I've had to reimplement countless APIs for all kinds of services. There are new APIs that make old ones deprecated all the time. Maybe you should try to keep up instead of stagnate like Apple is.
>And yet, they didn't cheer ActiveX. For some reason you assume that every single API Google pushes out is XHR, and not ActiveX
Just more bullshit from you. I'm tired of it. You aren't even attempting good faith arguments.
> I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem to be right. They have a process:
Yes, they do. It's their process, and their timelines. Many features on the page we're discussing are literally "drew on a napkin, not part of any standards process at all, shipped in Chrome"
>Google is also involved in W3C and do I really need to bring up the topics API as Google attempting to use their position to push their agenda as well?
How is Web Bluetooth an evil agenda of Google??
It's making web browsers more capable. It's not some evil conspiracy to enrich Google. If Apple wants to let the W3C move forward in making it a standard, then all browsers would benefit, and all users that would like to use a bluetooth enabled web-app would benefit.
The only one that benefits from not allowing it to become a standard is Apple, because they get to force developers to make a native app, where Apple can extract a % of sales through the app.
>Just because Google does something it doesn't mean the rest of the industry should follow. If we did that in IE days we would still have ActiveX
IE was the first to implement XMLHTTPRequest. It changed the web fundamentally, and was the basis for "web 2.0". Everyone was glad that they created it, standards or not when it was first implemented.
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.
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.
>Google alone cannot and should dictate a standard, even though apparently we are fine with them attempting to do just that.
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.
You continue to dwell on Bluetooth while ignoring that there are reasons to not just blindly follow Google which is what pages like this are advocating for. I honestly don't care about Bluetooth and I don't have any stakes on whether or not it is supported, and I also don't know enough about it to actually talk about security on it. I will leave that to people that actually know what they are talking about instead.
I would love if you can actually respond to Topics API and other initiatves that google has attempted that only furthers their agenda, just like you are saying Apple is doing. The fact is both companies are incentivized to do exactly that, and as I have already said both companies do this, and yet you seem to want to give Google a free pass and ignore when they have been problematic.
Regarding Firefox, them not implementing something is a very important piece of the puzzle and you cannot choose to ignore them just to try to strengthen your own argument. This is my fundamental issue with this page since they do not by default show Firefox because it completely breaks the "Apple Bad" narrative they are trying to push.
The fact is, Firefox on both mobile and desktop has not implemented many of the same API's that Safari has not and in some cases has implemented less. The Why there is extremely important because it directly impacts the conversation. Mozilla does not have any of the incentives that either Google has for pushing these features or that Apple has for not implementing them and yet they have chosen not to implement them.
I do find it quite fascinating that you have written this phrase 5 times in this thread instead of actually being able to engage in a conversation you disagree with. Frankly it's not cute.
Sure it is pointless but you also chose to start engaging in the conversation since you were confident in what you wanted to say. Just as I am.
On multiple occasions you are purposefully ignoring what people are saying and attempting to just talk about something else. I have acknowledged your bluetooth comment but you refuse to acknowledge topics api or any other instance that Google has also used their power to try to do exactly what you claim Apple is doing.
Google is not your friend, neither is Apple. And you may not care what Mozilla does but W3C does so they matter and they don't have the incentives Apple does and yet they also chose not to implement many of the same features, which you also won't acknowledge.
There is a reasonable argument that there won’t be many new languages now that models are sufficiently trained. If anything, we may see languages optimized for models and not humans.
Same for me and a particular North Face light jacket. I’ve purchased the same model about 5 times, with noticeably lower quality materials in the more recent years. Faster wear, quicker fading colors, thinner.
They’ve never forced folks to verify email addresses, but the last 6 months or so you see tons of accounts commenting on very on discussions, writing bland ai-like, making posts that are just riling things up, and/or hiding their post and comment history.
What was once the last bastion of interesting social media is quickly becoming useless.
> but so many people have a religious level hatred of public employees
Are you sure this is the issue here? Seems there are lots of regulations around how much public employees can be paid (usually too low for skilled IT), how easy it is to move or fire them, etc. Sounds much easier to just hire a contractor.
There is no better solution. DoS is fundamentally not preventable, whether in the digital realm or the physical. The only thing you can do is out-brute force the DoS. Hence Cloudflare. Hence why everything naturally centralizes to some extent (we need some word like carcinization for centralization).
Murder is fundamentally not preventable. So what do we do? We regulate some of the more likely avenues of committing murder (e.g. knives and guns) to discourage, and track down and punish cases of murder to dissuade.
It seems to me that the writer, Herman, doesn't want to use the cloud short of the parts that are almost mandatory these days (e.g., CloudFlare, or a CDN of some sort).
GitHub Pages, CloudFlare pages etc are a great and very simple service. But they're opposite or contrary to running your own hardware, warts and all.
Herman wasn't looking for solutions IMO, I read it more as him lamenting at how hostile and insidious the internet has become. It has been for some time, but it seems to be getting exponentially worse.
Remember when Stormfront was a thing? Remember how everyone cheered on that CF and others banned them? I’m sure Herman was one of the loudest ones to proclaim victory that day.
Hostility and insidiousness were created by you for not standing up when it was most needed and called for. And as you can see, Stormfront in hindsight was the most milquetoast website compared to landscape of politics today. All I’m saying is CF is a viable caching option. But if you’re looking for morality support - you lost that war a long time ago.
“If we do not stand up for the rights of the accused, we endanger our own. For when the tide turns, who will stand up for us?”
reply