Live data from Hacker News

New WebKit Features in Safari 13.1

webkit.org

51–60 of 60 posts

Re: New WebKit Features in Safari 13.1

#51
post #44
post #2

No Web Push API. No fixes for SameSite Lax cookies under service worker routes. No page lifecycle API so we better handle iOS PWAs.

We’d love your feedback on how you are looking to use these APIs. A lot of our work is driven by developer feedback. Also, for the SameSite Lax thing, can you explain a bit more? That sounds like a bug. If you have a reproducible case, please file at bugs.webkit.org and let me know the Bug ID.

Regarding the bugs, please check this repro site: https://samesite-pwa-demo.herokuapp.com/

Also another bug, which is maybe related: https://rocky-fjord-97287.herokuapp.com

Re: New WebKit Features in Safari 13.1

#53
post #15
post #5

On a side note, I find crazy this obsessive-compulsive behavior to use `const` everywhere in modern JS codebase (even in Webkit now). It solves really no problem (I mean, Python, Ruby and almost all other programming languages are doing fine without preventing against variable reassignment, and we can still reassign function parameters and object properties in JS). So much brain power wasted on this useless thing. Al…

There are very few places where you ever need to use let or var. const is solving important issues - it has lexical scope instead var function scope - it does not hoist like var - it prevents accidental reassignment Accidental reassignment happen more often in JS because of non-lexial scoping, weakly typed and async functions. Also, both Ruby and Python are "strongly typed" as opposed to weakly typed Javascript.

Let has lexical scope.

I’ve always thought const was something of a mid feature, as it doesn’t generally do what people think. He’ll back when Opera was an actual browser engine it just used const as an alias for var.

Re: New WebKit Features in Safari 13.1

#54
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why pray tell would Apple want to “stifle” competition for FaceTime? It’s not like Apple makes money from it. FaceTime and Messages (blue bubbles) are the only strong lock-in Apple has beyond brand effect. People don't buy iPhones over Android for Maps or Mail: they do it for the camera, FaceTime, and the blue bubbles. See the comparative market irrelevance of iPads, Macs, and other Apple products. > And then they…

FaceTime and Messages (blue bubbles) are the only strong lock-in Apple has beyond brand effect. People don't buy iPhones over Android for Maps or Mail: they do it for the camera, FaceTime, and the blue bubbles. See the comparative market irrelevance of iPads, Macs, and other Apple products. So you think FaceTime and “green bubbles” is the only reason that people spend more than twice as much on iPhones than Androids…

> So you think FaceTime and “green bubbles” is the only reason that people spend more than twice as much on iPhones than Androids - even though cross platform chat/video call apps like WhatsApp and Messenger are far more popular - even on iPhones?

The camera, blue bubbles, and FaceTime (audio as well as video). Brand and ecosystem are secondary, UI/UX are fleeting, and there seem early indications that iPhones may become seen as "grandma's phone" like Macs in the mid '90s. Scale effects and supply chain are contingent on demand.

> WhatsApp and Messenger are far more popular

Grandma only knows how to use FaceTime.

> iPads are the only tablets that actually sell

> Also, the personal computer isn’t nearly as relevant

Agreed, iPad and Mac sales are basically irrelevant compared to iPhone, because tablets and desktops and laptops are almost niche compared to the scale of mobile worldwide. No indication that any post-mobile devices (i.e. watches, glasses, goggles) will approach the size of the smartphone market.

> So you built an iOS app because of Safari and Apple’s evil lock in but you ended up spending money on an Android app anyway. So it was irrelevant because you couldn’t go to market with just a web app anyway....

Yeah, in 2016. We were contending with iPhone 4s and the first generation of Android phones that could reasonably perform browser-based video calls and overheating handsets and draining batteries after 20+ min video surveys and no WebRTC support from Apple yet and a bunch of 3G.

I didn't start thinking about Apple's potential antitrust violations ("evil lock in") until evaluating re-entering the video chat space in 2018.

In 2020, with contemporary hardware, one shouldn't still need to download some native app in order to perform a video call.

> Again there is an existence proof that isn’t true. Not only does Apple not force

I specifically said funnel, not force. The strategy is to get developers into the sale pipeline and on the radar for competitive analysis. Zoom has considered handling payments through the App Store, but decided against it because they support multiple platforms and have the resources to build their own subscription infrastructure.

> There is an existence proof that you are wrong about the Justice Department “forced” Microsoft to unbundle IE and Windows. IE is still bundled with Windows over 20 years later.

Hah, yes—but now you can delete it!

> Swift wasn’t introduced until 2014. Any startup that was crazy enough to use Swift then was making a very bad decision. Also the performance and hardware of the average Android phone is still crappy.

I should have said "native iOS development." Swift over Objective-C felt like a good decision, we worked with strong contractors who were motivated to use newer tech, perf was good, the code was clean and didn't require much ongoing maintenance, our CTO was able to jump in later and make changes efficiently. It was just a huge distraction to need to build an iOS app, go through the App Store, etc., but we wouldn't have been able to get traction without it.

Re: New WebKit Features in Safari 13.1

#55
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We settled on TokBox. We were one of their first customers making significant use of server-side recording (virtual estimates for home service providers), and worked closely with the TokBox QA/dev team to resolve bugs until things stabilized in 2016 around the time we hit real product-market fit (focusing on relocation moving estimates). I've stepped away but AFAIK they're still using it. It was expensive but worked…

Thanks maxwell for the answer! Really appreciate it, apologies for asking more but how did you guys handle customer browsers not really up to date or compatible with webrtc back then?

We initially handled browser-specific bugs in an ad hoc manner, and kept hitting unexpected issues with slight variations in hardware and software. The most common issue was that things failed in a way we weren't expecting and the solution was better error handling.

The usual tools for cross-device/browser testing (e.g. BrowserStack) didn't work for video chat: we could simulate network disruptions but needed actual hardware for testing and debugging video/audio issues.

So we bought/pooled a ton of devices and had a QA team in our European office methodically test across devices and browsers.

We were also contending with provider (TokBox) issues early on in '15, which were mostly resolved by mid '16. Our business model, and pivots that focused our target market, didn't enable building out that level of infrastructure in-house, and I wouldn't recommend it if making any kind of vertical play, i.e. unless your customers are developers.

Re: New WebKit Features in Safari 13.1

#56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It’s not like Apple makes money from it. Facetime is a feature that helps sell their devices. If they don't ultimately make money from it, why did they spent money to create it?

So how would stopping people from making web video chat apps but allowing them to make apps that integrate with the dialer and phone history help them sell more devices? They want a robust third party ecosystem.

Devoting developer resources to building/extending native iOS apps to integrate with iOS-specific dialer/phone history increases costs and extends lock-in. Web apps that can perform all the functionality of native apps, such as video chat and games, erode the value of the App Store.

Integrating with the iOS dialer and phone history means not implementing something else that would provide value across platforms.

Re: New WebKit Features in Safari 13.1

#57
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FaceTime and Messages (blue bubbles) are the only strong lock-in Apple has beyond brand effect. People don't buy iPhones over Android for Maps or Mail: they do it for the camera, FaceTime, and the blue bubbles. See the comparative market irrelevance of iPads, Macs, and other Apple products. So you think FaceTime and “green bubbles” is the only reason that people spend more than twice as much on iPhones than Androids…

> So you think FaceTime and “green bubbles” is the only reason that people spend more than twice as much on iPhones than Androids - even though cross platform chat/video call apps like WhatsApp and Messenger are far more popular - even on iPhones? The camera, blue bubbles, and FaceTime (audio as well as video). Brand and ecosystem are secondary, UI/UX are fleeting, and there seem early indications that iPhones may be…

The camera, blue bubbles, and FaceTime (audio as well as video). Brand and ecosystem are secondary, UI/UX are fleeting, and there seem early indications that iPhones may become seen as "grandma's phone" like Macs in the mid '90s. Scale effects and supply chain are contingent on demand.

So brand and ecosystem are “fleeting”. When are you predicting that the iPhone - which has been around and profitable since 2007 will fail? Better example is the Mac, while all other non Microsoft compatible operating systems have died, the Mac has been around for 35 years.

So you think all of the cool kids are going to use crappy $300 Android phones?

Grandma only knows how to use FaceTime.

So from what I see most older people are using cheap Android phones. Unless you believe that Apple’s 13% worldwide market share is only made up of grandma. If Google can’t make a decent video app after four failed attempts, whose fault is that? I thought Google was made up of all these “smart people” (tm).

Yeah, in 2016. We were contending with iPhone 4s and the first generation of Android phones that could reasonably perform browser-based video calls and overheating handsets and draining batteries after 20+ min video surveys and no WebRTC support from Apple yet and a bunch of 3G.

By 2016, the iPhone 4s was 5 years old. But you said you were forced to make an app for Android anyway. Also, 4G was ubiquitous on even low end phones by then. But as far as performance, even today most Android phones are crappy prepaid phones sold by second rate carriers like MetroPCS and Boost Mobile.

I specifically said funnel, not force. The strategy is to get developers into the sale pipeline and on the radar for competitive analysis. Zoom has considered handling payments through the App Store, but decided against it because they support multiple platforms and have the resources to build their own subscription infrastructure.

Do you realize how easy it is to build your own subscription infrastructure? ACloudGuru is definitely not a multi-billion dollar company and they have their own subscription infrastructure that you have to use - as does LinuxAcademy (now owned by ACG)

So you mean companies want to do things to funnel companies into their sales pipeline - I’m shocked - a customer acquisition strategy? How novel.

Hah, yes—but now you can delete it!

Just like you can “delete” Safari on iOS but the underlying rendering engine is still embedded in the OS - just like IE.

It was just a huge distraction to need to build an iOS app, go through the App Store, etc., but we wouldn't have been able to get traction without it.

But it wasn’t a huge distraction to build the Android app....

Re: New WebKit Features in Safari 13.1

#58
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how would stopping people from making web video chat apps but allowing them to make apps that integrate with the dialer and phone history help them sell more devices? They want a robust third party ecosystem.

Devoting developer resources to building/extending native iOS apps to integrate with iOS-specific dialer/phone history increases costs and extends lock-in. Web apps that can perform all the functionality of native apps, such as video chat and games, erode the value of the App Store. Integrating with the iOS dialer and phone history means not implementing something else that would provide value across platforms.

The attitude that a company shouldn’t actually build features that are better for the consumer and instead are better for the developer is how we end up with crappy resource intensive, battery draining electron apps. If you can’t make an app that is in the best interest of the customer, maybe your product doesn’t deserve to exist.

Re: New WebKit Features in Safari 13.1

#59
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So you think FaceTime and “green bubbles” is the only reason that people spend more than twice as much on iPhones than Androids - even though cross platform chat/video call apps like WhatsApp and Messenger are far more popular - even on iPhones? The camera, blue bubbles, and FaceTime (audio as well as video). Brand and ecosystem are secondary, UI/UX are fleeting, and there seem early indications that iPhones may be…

The camera, blue bubbles, and FaceTime (audio as well as video). Brand and ecosystem are secondary, UI/UX are fleeting, and there seem early indications that iPhones may become seen as "grandma's phone" like Macs in the mid '90s. Scale effects and supply chain are contingent on demand. So brand and ecosystem are “fleeting”. When are you predicting that the iPhone - which has been around and profitable since 2007 will…

> So brand and ecosystem are “fleeting”. When are you predicting that the iPhone - which has been around and profitable since 2007 will fail?

I said brand and ecosystem are secondary [to critical unique hardware/software features]. UI/UX are fleeting because they're ultimately a matter of style, which come in and out with the tide, to paraphrase Jefferson.

I don't see iPhones going anywhere. There are a lot of grandmas out there.

> So you think all of the cool kids are going to use crappy $300 Android phones?

The cool kids are tooling on cheap Linux devices like PinePhones which will form the basis of less general-purpose, more app/service-focused phones produced by other kinds of (not necessarily "tech") companies, for other purposes: think industrial phones from Honeywell for $200, luxury phones from Coach included in a $395 clutch, a free Tide phone with a monthly laundry detergent subscription, to the point of calculators: coveted objects in the '70s, given away as branded giveaways at Burger King and your local credit union by the '00s. Smartphones will get there.

> So from what I see most older people are using cheap Android phones. [...] If Google can’t make a decent video app[...]

Some grandmas use FaceTime, others use Skype.

As per Duo, Google blew it and no one will ever use their video chat apps again (unless under YouTube, that's their last shot).

> By 2016, the iPhone 4s was 5 years old. But you said you were forced to make an app for Android anyway. Also, 4G was ubiquitous on even low end phones by then.

Like Skype, our product internationalized well. We were doing video surveys all over North America, as well as surprisingly random European, Asian, and Australian locations by late 2016. South America and Africa in '17.

> But as far as performance, even today most Android phones are crappy prepaid phones sold by second rate carriers like MetroPCS and Boost Mobile.

Sounds true.

> Do you realize how easy it is to build your own subscription infrastructure?

Having a subscription flow doesn't mean people use it. I'm talking more about business models than technical feats. A passable video chat service + payment flow isn't so hard in the technical sense, for us the key was aligning with a viable pricing model for our customers, which sustained our development regardless of investment, which helped secure further investment.

We built a sweet automated transaction flow, and no service providers ever used it. Instead we emailed invoices and they always got paid. But we were transactional, selling to SMB/enterprise customers. Different story with different pricing models and customer base. I haven't done consumer subscriptions: that's where it seems that Apple wrings out developers, particularly game developers. Though I can see happily giving up 30% on virtual items with no marginal cost.

> Just like you can “delete” Safari on iOS but the underlying rendering engine is still embedded in the OS - just like IE.

You can run Chromium and Gecko on Windows and Mac. You can't run Chromium or Gecko on iOS.

> But it wasn’t a huge distraction to build the Android app....

If we were only targeting North America, it would probably have been a bigger distraction to build the Android app. The problems that necessitated a native app ended up seemingly being hardware deficiencies based on cost considerations. Booking rate for services after successful survey ended up being substantially lower in North America among Android app users, yet it was very high among Android users with devices capable of running the web app, which had motivated us to build the native app to support more Android users in the first place. Didn't really pan out on this continent.

Critical in Europe and Asia though.

Post reply on HN