41–50 of 272 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Me as a consumer: - browsers having to go through Apple means slower updates (including for bugs or security), not needed on Mac or any other platform - Apple forces every alternative-engine browser to use a pretty broken framework that Safari does not use, not needed on Mac or any other platform - Apple's restrictions on alternative engines in the EU are a vast list of malicious compliance[0], making those engines a…
Those views are "you as a developer." Very few actual end users think about or care about any of these things.
Consumers in a general sense don't know much of how the world works - safe radiation exposure, food safety, drug dosing thermodynamics, household electrical wiring, airborne particulate, airline maintenance...
This is why we have a government regulatory regime to protect them. The government has to strong arm companies out of bad behavior, because consumers do not understand.
Some people who have Apple and Google stock will voice opinion against regulation. Or people who really love their devices and don't understand the harms.
But the fact is that this Titanic command of markets damages the robustness of the economy. Google and Apple are doing massive harm.
Capitalism should be hard. It should be a treadmill. You shouldn't be able to coast.
We like the market. We like evolutionary pressure. Giants this large, however, are an ecological hack that get to escape the same algorithm we subject every other company to. They created an artificial and illegal means to prevent themselves from facing competition. They're an invasive species picking on ecosystems that literally cannot fight back.
It's a good thing that new companies can (or could) threaten old companies. It's a renewing forest fire, a de-ossification. It rewards innovation capital rather than institutions.
Apple and Google have found a way to forever avoid this by wedging themselves in as "owners of mobile computing". These two companies own it. Period. You don't. Consumers don't. No other company can even enter into the arena. You play by their rules.
Antitrust enforcement has never been more needed. We've had two decades of devices we really only rent and don't own. Devices that strangle consumer control over how we spend our time and money.
If America doesn't do it, foreign countries seeking sovereignty should.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Me as a consumer: - browsers having to go through Apple means slower updates (including for bugs or security), not needed on Mac or any other platform - Apple forces every alternative-engine browser to use a pretty broken framework that Safari does not use, not needed on Mac or any other platform - Apple's restrictions on alternative engines in the EU are a vast list of malicious compliance[0], making those engines a…
Those views are "you as a developer." Very few actual end users think about or care about any of these things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Me as a consumer: - browsers having to go through Apple means slower updates (including for bugs or security), not needed on Mac or any other platform - Apple forces every alternative-engine browser to use a pretty broken framework that Safari does not use, not needed on Mac or any other platform - Apple's restrictions on alternative engines in the EU are a vast list of malicious compliance[0], making those engines a…
Those views are "you as a developer." Very few actual end users think about or care about any of these things.
Just because consumers are unaware that a problem exist doesn't mean they wouldn't care if they knew.
"Oh, is this metric important? Let me get right on that."
No shade intended towards the Ladybird team. You were given the terms and you're behaving rationally in response to them. More power to you. It's just a fantastic demonstration of what it looks like to very suddenly be developing against a very specific metric.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Person in tech me is in conflict with customer me as to who is to blame. Maybe system imposed browser/agent defaults were a mistake after all.
So it's okay for a website builder to test in only one browser defaulting to an imposed browser/agent restriction?
Write a page on chrome, works 90% on Firefox. But will likely works 10% on safari. Supports safari literally means support another browser (by workaround all its bugs).
Thank you for the belly-laugh. It's Goodhart's Law in graph form. "Oh, is this metric important ? Let me get right on that." No shade intended towards the Ladybird team. You were given the terms and you're behaving rationally in response to them. More power to you. It's just a fantastic demonstration of what it looks like to very suddenly be developing against a very specific metric.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those views are "you as a developer." Very few actual end users think about or care about any of these things.
You're right. They may be a "consumer" but they're wearing their develop hat. Consumers don't care about update cycles.
Me as engineer: it's wild a big corporation dictates a quality bar and limit API access for 3rd party software. Me as customer: oh man I'm sure glad stuff is reviewed to some quality bar and the OS limits API access.
I hope it’s the correct 90%!
Me as engineer: it's wild a big corporation dictates a quality bar and limit API access for 3rd party software. Me as customer: oh man I'm sure glad stuff is reviewed to some quality bar and the OS limits API access.