Live data from Hacker News

Apple Announces Full WebRTC Support in Safari 11

blog.peer5.com

11–20 of 167 posts

Re: Apple Announces Full WebRTC Support in Safari 11

#11
post #4
post #2

Does this mean Apple may actually implement Service Workers and Web Push in the next Safari?? :)

By Web Push you mean http2.0's push feature? If so then yes ( http://caniuse.com/#search=http%2F2 ). AFAIK Service workers are still under consideration, and nothing was announced.

By Web Push EGreg probably means https://www.w3.org/TR/push-api/ which requires Service Workers as a dependency.

Re: Apple Announces Full WebRTC Support in Safari 11

#12

What WebRTC apps can we expect will be mainstream in, say, 6 years? I'm just trying to picture what this technology will allow (or replace).

That's the $1B question. The obvious application is the video conferencing style hangouts, Skype (which are using WebRTC already). The nice thing about having video conf capabilities in the browser is that you can embed it in any web page and start do interesting things with it - like interactive lectures. Improved gaming networking is another vertical. We've built Peer5 (W17) on top of WebRTC to create a P2P CDN for Video streaming

Re: Apple Announces Full WebRTC Support in Safari 11

#13
post #9

I saw this yesterday on twitter and my thought was "they don't support webrtc yet?!? seriously?" It sometimes baffles me how apple is holding up progress on the web - and that they aren't criticized more for it.

As long as we get there eventually, I will always side with taking the time to do it right. There is room in the world for both a highly advanced browser, with the sacrifices that come with that, and a workhorse. Nothing is stopping you from having them both installed (except, well, on iOS).

Re: Apple Announces Full WebRTC Support in Safari 11

#14
Apple and Microsoft waited five years to deploy this thing. Given how quickly it was implemented and adopted by other browsers, I have to wonder what their motives were for deliberately not integrating it; because frankly they could've done it pretty quickly at any point in the last five years.

I remember having to integrate WebRTC through cordova (thank goodness somebody did it first) a couple years ago, and wondering why on earth Apple didn't find time or money for this. libwebrtc has been stable for years, it represents effectively no security risk, it performs well on all of their platforms. It truly boggles the mind.

Re: Apple Announces Full WebRTC Support in Safari 11

#15
post #9

I saw this yesterday on twitter and my thought was "they don't support webrtc yet?!? seriously?" It sometimes baffles me how apple is holding up progress on the web - and that they aren't criticized more for it.

They're not holding up progress. They have different objectives, and chief among them is power efficiency. Chrome eats up a lot more battery life than Safari.[1] So did Flash (among other conflicts), and I think we all accept now that "holding that up" was good for the web in the long run.

Apple tends to take a little longer and suffer a little short-term pain to get it right in the long run.

[1] https://daringfireball.net/2017/05/safari_vs_chrome_on_the_m...

Re: Apple Announces Full WebRTC Support in Safari 11

#17

What WebRTC apps can we expect will be mainstream in, say, 6 years? I'm just trying to picture what this technology will allow (or replace).

That's the $1B question. The obvious application is the video conferencing style hangouts, Skype (which are using WebRTC already). The nice thing about having video conf capabilities in the browser is that you can embed it in any web page and start do interesting things with it - like interactive lectures. Improved gaming networking is another vertical. We've built Peer5 (W17) on top of WebRTC to create a P2P CDN for…

What about a WebRTC version of Twitch.tv? Is that feasible in 5 or 10 years? Twitch does transcoding and I'm not sure how transcoding would work with WebRTC.

Re: Apple Announces Full WebRTC Support in Safari 11

#18

Apple and Microsoft waited five years to deploy this thing. Given how quickly it was implemented and adopted by other browsers, I have to wonder what their motives were for deliberately not integrating it; because frankly they could've done it pretty quickly at any point in the last five years. I remember having to integrate WebRTC through cordova (thank goodness somebody did it first) a couple years ago, and wonderi…

Don't forget energy efficiency. That's a huge priority for Apple and explains a lot of delays. Safari is way more energy efficient than Chrome.[1]

[1] https://daringfireball.net/2017/05/safari_vs_chrome_on_the_m...

Re: Apple Announces Full WebRTC Support in Safari 11

#19
post #15
post #9

I saw this yesterday on twitter and my thought was "they don't support webrtc yet?!? seriously?" It sometimes baffles me how apple is holding up progress on the web - and that they aren't criticized more for it.

They're not holding up progress. They have different objectives, and chief among them is power efficiency. Chrome eats up a lot more battery life than Safari.[1] So did Flash (among other conflicts), and I think we all accept now that "holding that up" was good for the web in the long run. Apple tends to take a little longer and suffer a little short-term pain to get it right in the long run. [1] https://daringfireba…

Apple has absolutely kneecapped web technologies. Mobile Safari has simple, egregious bugs that have been open for years. We're talking about things like being able to crash the browser with CSS or file selection, etc. It's impossible to make the case that Apple is just rejecting features for the sake of the user. The next question is why, and you'll need some creativity to come up with any other answer than pointing to the monolithic, money printing app store.

Re: Apple Announces Full WebRTC Support in Safari 11

#20
post #13
post #9

I saw this yesterday on twitter and my thought was "they don't support webrtc yet?!? seriously?" It sometimes baffles me how apple is holding up progress on the web - and that they aren't criticized more for it.

As long as we get there eventually, I will always side with taking the time to do it right. There is room in the world for both a highly advanced browser, with the sacrifices that come with that, and a workhorse. Nothing is stopping you from having them both installed (except, well, on iOS).

> Nothing is stopping you from having them both installed

Sure, but it stops your site from working cross-browser.

Post reply on HN