Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

WebKit Goals for 2020

trac.webkit.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 154 posts

Re: WebKit Goals for 2020

#141

Post by kitsunesoba »

millstone wrote: post #124
SiVal wrote: post #98

Apple apparently hates the name "progressive web apps", so how about: "offline web apps" or "installable web apps" or just "unrestricted web apps"? I'd like those names more, too. Regardless of the name, where is WebKit's commitment to joining Google, Mozilla, Microsoft, and countless web developers in making web apps first-class apps on iOS? Apple keeps silently "considering" and "accidentally" messing up various as…

What is this hope for healthy browser engine competition? On Android and ChromeOS, Chrome and Chromium-based browsers have more than 99% marketshare. "Apple should allow non-WebKit browsers" is really saying "what's holding back the mobile web is that Google does not completely dominate it." Only one thing prevents that outcome today.

Yes, this is precisely my fear. The moment that iOS is opened up to third party web engines and Blink-based Chrome has been ported, “viewed best in” badges will rise from the dead, and users will be badgered into installing Chrome for iOS, eliminating the last major non-Chrome holdout (Safari currently holds 16% marketshare). This will make Firefox extremely vulnerable with its ~4.3% marketshare.

Re: WebKit Goals for 2020

#142

Post by lern_too_spel »

millstone wrote: post #140
lern_too_spel wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a novel argument against allowing competing browsers. Let's apply a basic check on its validity. Do you think Mozilla agrees with it? I think you'll find the answer is "no." Not allowing competing browsers does not help the web ecosystem or the users. It helps only Apple.

Yes I think Mozilla would agree with both the marketshare figures, and that iOS is the only effective check on Google's mobile web dominance. How has allowing competing browser engines on Android helped the web ecosystem? Non-Chromium browsers are a rounding error on Android.

> How has allowing competing browser engines on Android helped the web ecosystem?

By allowing people to install Firefox. Would you rather that Android be Chrome-only? Neither, I suspect, would Mozilla. The same applies to iOS, with its backwards browser holding back the web. Your argument would justify Microsoft making IE 6 the only allowed browser on Windows. Do you really not see how ridiculous that is?

Re: WebKit Goals for 2020

#143

Post by kmlx »

xena wrote: post #96
kmlx wrote: post #56

as is tradition already, webkit is missing: - full PWA - ServiceWorkers - VP8/9 - webvr - and many others this could all be mitigated if aapl would let us install custom non-webkit browsers on ios. unfortunately it seems we will need the courts to force aapl.

iOS already has progressive web app support

not full support, no

Re: WebKit Goals for 2020

#144

Post by why-oh-why »

jxdxbx wrote: post #112
newscracker wrote: post #9

Will 2020 be the year when WebKit, and the Safari browsers by extension, will have full and proper support for Service Workers and PWAs on par with other browsers? I recall reading that Safari lags behind on it, and the allegation was that Apple prefers native apps and doesn’t want web apps to be more popular.

I sure hope not. Why do I want web pages to be able to run persistent background tasks? Such an obviously bad idea. The tragedy is that Apple actually is implementing support for this garbage.

Web pages will never run persistent background tasks on iOS unless you install them. And even then, native apps are also both highly restricted and often have background tasks that you wouldn’t approve of if you knew what they were.

Re: WebKit Goals for 2020

#145

Post by why-oh-why »

earenndil wrote: post #123
greatjack613 wrote: post #121

In response to all those complaining about no competing browsers on IOS. Why doesn't someone compile chromium for ios and then publish it using AltStore? https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/master/docs... https://altstore.io/

IOS requires all native code be signed so JIT wouldn't work. It would be a possibility on a jailbroken device, but someone would have to make a port.

Isn’t that the whole point of AltStore? Apple certainly didn’t sign the GameBoy emulator available on AltStore.

The problem in this case is effort. It’s not that easy to port a browser effectively.

Re: WebKit Goals for 2020

#146

Post by acdha »

jlokier wrote: post #104
tmikaeld wrote: post #3

I've been implementing FIDO2 into my serverless application, finally there will be iOS support! It really is the golden authentication method, it's very thought through and incredibly easy to use (unfortunately not to implement though)

FIDO2 is working, but I wouldn't call it "golden" at all. Tying authentication to a single device you can lose, especially one controlled by the device vendor not by yourself, sounds highly risk prone to me. As far as I'm aware, this is not yet a solved problem with WebauthN or FIDO2 standards - they simply recommend that you provide another authentication method or backup device for recovery, and leave it to you to…

It’s been a solved problem from the time it launched: you should never have one FIDO device since that leaves no room for failure. Every service I use except Amazon implemented this correctly[1] and the significant security improvements over TOTP or SSH keys are worth it, especially since phishing operations commonly bypass the easier schemes now.

1. You’ll need to find a notary if you lose your AWS MFA device

Re: WebKit Goals for 2020

#147

Post by acdha »

kmlx wrote: post #56

as is tradition already, webkit is missing: - full PWA - ServiceWorkers - VP8/9 - webvr - and many others this could all be mitigated if aapl would let us install custom non-webkit browsers on ios. unfortunately it seems we will need the courts to force aapl.

Who’d benefit if they did? iOS users would benefit from AV1 but the only thing VP8/9 would add for web users is security exposure and lower battery life. Everyone serving video on the web already has equivalent quality H.264/H.265 and the next big change should be moving into the future with AV1 rather than spending millions to implement previous generations of codecs.

Similarly, as a developer I like the idea of Service Workers but as a user I’m forced to note that the only thing they seem to have added to my web experience are sites breaking in a way which requires more than a reload to fix.

Re: WebKit Goals for 2020

#148

Post by SahAssar »

aphextron wrote: post #100
SiVal wrote: post #98

Apple apparently hates the name "progressive web apps", so how about: "offline web apps" or "installable web apps" or just "unrestricted web apps"? I'd like those names more, too. Regardless of the name, where is WebKit's commitment to joining Google, Mozilla, Microsoft, and countless web developers in making web apps first-class apps on iOS? Apple keeps silently "considering" and "accidentally" messing up various as…

>where is WebKit's commitment to joining Google, Mozilla, Microsoft, and countless web developers in making web apps first-class apps on iOS? PWAs are a Google initiative for Android phones, with Mozilla and Microsoft simply following suit to get their products into Google's platform. Apple doesn't have that problem. They have their own platform with their own goals in mind. Non-native experiences are strictly inferi…

PWA is not a google-only thing, and if apple has better ideas for the implementation they should propose those, not implement a half-baked, buggy implementation of the standard agreed by all others years ago.

Native vs non-native is a red herring, there are performant webapps and slow native apps. There are accessible webapps and non-accessible native apps. If performance, accessibility or quality was the goal they would have stricter controls on their own store (as in not allowing apps that are basically "webpage-wrapped-in-webview" apps), as it is it seems that the goal is vendor lock-in and the revenue from in-app purchases.

Re: WebKit Goals for 2020

#149

Post by coldtea »

SiVal wrote: post #98

Apple apparently hates the name "progressive web apps", so how about: "offline web apps" or "installable web apps" or just "unrestricted web apps"? I'd like those names more, too. Regardless of the name, where is WebKit's commitment to joining Google, Mozilla, Microsoft, and countless web developers in making web apps first-class apps on iOS? Apple keeps silently "considering" and "accidentally" messing up various as…

>Regardless of the name, where is WebKit's commitment to joining Google, Mozilla, Microsoft, and countless web developers in making web apps first-class apps on iOS?

Why should they make "web apps first-class apps on iOS"?

As an iOS user I'd rather they discouraged them.

The whole value proposition of iOS is getting fast, native apps, that directly use the APIs.

Not encouraging lowest common denominator implementations...

Re: WebKit Goals for 2020

#150

Post by coldtea »

sozy777 wrote: post #116
jxdxbx wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Web apps suck and all the doodads and gewgaws that browsers now have to implement have made the web a surveillance nightmare that is a worse experience for publishing and reading. There is a place in the world for lowest-common-denominator cross-platform apps, but I wish it wasn't my browser.

We all know why Apple needs the appstore... To make money

You tell it as if it is some dirty secret.

Apple wants to make money, developers need to make money, etc.

They're for profit. You can get an OpenMoko phone and install something non-profit on it.

Post reply on HN