This site has a category called "Browser choice must matter" which is nothing but a series of articles slating Apple and Safari. Nothing about Chrome's desktop dominance or Google's abusive practices at all :thinking-face:.
Given that we’re in the information warfare era, it’s a given that Apple would be trying to sane-wash their anti-competitive practices (which they undoubtedly are), and drag their feet as much as possible on standards and interoperability.
The one piece from this author that I found most persuasive is the analysis of mobile web vs app usage share. The web is practically dead on mobile. Users spend practically no time there, it's night and day compared to desktop. It's no wonder that developing countries, where desktops had less penetration and mobile dominates, have much less of an "open web" to speak of, and far more things are done in apps/siloes. If we accept the premise that the mobile web shows us one potential future trajectory for the web, it's looking grim. And if so, Google's approach of trying to make the "Web Platform" match native platform capabilities (notifications, for example) is far healthier for the web than Apple's approach of gating features exclusive to native apps (it almost sounds self-evident when I put it that way). Beyond all the arguments and talking point, look at mobile web vs app usage and you can see the end-result of Apple's vision for the web: it's dead.
I'm curious: what are the web standards/specifications that webkit does not implement, efficiently or at all, that prevent all but niche or insignificantly important functionality?
For that matter, what critical new functionality has been introduced in the web standards/specifications over the last 20 years that was not possible to implement prior? My quick and uninformed take is just: video.
As a casual web developer, it feels very much like the CSS, HTML, and Web API specifications are wellwell beyond what is critical and deep into the "specifications capture" phase of how companies compete.
I have no wish to defend Apple. However, I have no wish to defend Google or Microsoft either. Collectively, those three have a monopolistic market share for operating systems and web browsers on both desktop and mobile.
My fundamental problem with this author is his massive conflict of interest. He's not an outside observer but rather a Chromium engineer, former Google employee, current Microsoft employee. He talks about "competition" and "competitors" while basically ignoring the monopolistic landscape of the industry and the role of his own employers in that monopolization. Nobody has clean hands here, not Apple, not Google, not Microsoft. I don't see any of them really acting in the best interest of consumers. Let's not pretend, for example, that Chromium doesn't push a bunch of shit that consumers never wanted.
Progress would be breaking up this triopoly, not allowing Blink/Chromium to dominate everything.
The web "standards" bodies are a joke now because of the dominance of these few companies over web browsers. I don't even want to hear about standards anymore. So-called standards now are just the monopolists coming to agreement among themselves. All we have here is the employee of one monopolist complaining about another monopolist.
As far as I'm concerned, the web standards should be so simple that a little indie developer could write a full-fledged web browser. But people like the article author want web browser engines to become entire operating systems, which in effect excludes almost everyone from writing a web browser. That's not openness and freedom. It's inherently monopolistic.
8 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 27.8 ms ] thread- sent from my iPhone
For that matter, what critical new functionality has been introduced in the web standards/specifications over the last 20 years that was not possible to implement prior? My quick and uninformed take is just: video.
As a casual web developer, it feels very much like the CSS, HTML, and Web API specifications are well well beyond what is critical and deep into the "specifications capture" phase of how companies compete.
My fundamental problem with this author is his massive conflict of interest. He's not an outside observer but rather a Chromium engineer, former Google employee, current Microsoft employee. He talks about "competition" and "competitors" while basically ignoring the monopolistic landscape of the industry and the role of his own employers in that monopolization. Nobody has clean hands here, not Apple, not Google, not Microsoft. I don't see any of them really acting in the best interest of consumers. Let's not pretend, for example, that Chromium doesn't push a bunch of shit that consumers never wanted.
Progress would be breaking up this triopoly, not allowing Blink/Chromium to dominate everything.
The web "standards" bodies are a joke now because of the dominance of these few companies over web browsers. I don't even want to hear about standards anymore. So-called standards now are just the monopolists coming to agreement among themselves. All we have here is the employee of one monopolist complaining about another monopolist.
As far as I'm concerned, the web standards should be so simple that a little indie developer could write a full-fledged web browser. But people like the article author want web browser engines to become entire operating systems, which in effect excludes almost everyone from writing a web browser. That's not openness and freedom. It's inherently monopolistic.
That's... largely what standards are?? And they are really beneficial??