271–280 of 329 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I finally had the ability to develop for iOS without a Mac Cordova, React Native, Xamarin, Flutter etc. Seems like the only thing criminal here is your inability to use Google.
You still need to deploy the application via Mac, genius.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's a lot of your "bloated" right there. You've been told this several times, so it seems that you're being deliberately obtuse. I also use "web apps" in the browser. I struggle to find a single one that doesn't fit the description. Well, I know some , but when ask people like you to give examples, there's either silence or some ridiculous thing that only proves my point. > I. Just. Don't. Care. Indeed > I'm ol…
try hover.com it is a responsive website, they do not have native apps, you can still use it on a phone I just checked you can use it standalone if you want to, I myself choose to use this website from the browser on linux... but I actually "installed" it on android and if I used my mobile more, I might just want to use this "app" this way every website is a potential web app if written responding to screen sizes cor…
> it is a responsive website, they do not have native apps, you can still use it on a phone
I see a largely static site with very little functionality.
During search the site jumps when the progress bar disappears, so you can easily misclick on items in the list (I did at least once).
During checkout it takes a second or so to add additional items to the order (could be long network connectivity, but there's no indication on the page).
I'm supposed to be impressed? You call this an application?
GoDaddy of all sites had all that in mid-2000s. Just checked: they still do, and it's faster, the page doesn't jump around, and additional selections are applied immediately. If something takes time, there's a loading indicator (inline if needed).
Okay, I decided to sign up and see what's there. Literally nothing works, but that's not really important. Here's the sad/funny part:
A static page showing domain details with literally just text on the page and a few icons requires 2.5 megabytes of Javascript.
Yes. This page with almost nothing on it needs 2.5 megabytes of Javascript: https://dmitriid.com/media/6/b/1/f/912c-e91b-4530-af54-09247...
Yes, you said it correctly: "inherently nothing is bloated". You still managed to bloat it. Go and read "Performance Inequality Gap 2024": https://infrequently.org/2024/01/performance-inequality-gap-... (I don't agree with Alex Russel on many things, but his performance analyses are always spot on).
> every website is a potential web app if written responding to screen sizes correctly
Honestly, web people should leave their bubble at least for a nanosecond from time to time. No, a site displaying a few hundred lines of text and a minimally functional checkout (and still doing a rather poor job of it) is not an application.
Having a responsive design does not make a website into an application.
> I do not really understand why you hate web apps that much, just do not use them! use them in your favourite browser or whatever
Because I'm forced to use them as they are the cheapest fastest way to make stuff for people who wouldn't know a good UI/UX (and good apps, and good programming practices) if it stared them in the face. And who cannot even design a text page without requiring enough resources to power a small town.
> whether a sotware shit or not, depends on the developer, not whether it is c++, java, swift, android-java or js...
And yet, the shittiest software is somehow still made for the web, en masse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You need a competitive browser if you want to convince people to use it. The argument may have worked 10-15 years ago. Since then Chrome has captured majority market share (among other things deploying, clear anticompetitive practices [1]). They now dominate all the standards bodies and shit all over the standards process by shipping whatever they damn please to the sycophantic cheering from the sidelines. So it's…
> It's "you need to ship whatever features Chrome ships at neck-breaking speed, all consequences be damned". Given that Chrome isn't shipping ActiveX or Flash, what's the issue? Apple and Mozilla decide how (or if) they want to implement each standard. If there's no demand for the feature, it shouldn't be a problem ignoring it. If icky features like WebUSB and Bluetooth are terrible, users won't notice anyways. I've…
What does this have to do with what I wrote? Literally nothing
> Apple and Mozilla decide how (or if) they want to implement each standard.
For something to become a standard there needs to be consensus, and at least two independent implementations.
Just because Chrome ships something doesn't make it a standard.
> If there's no demand for the feature, it shouldn't be a problem ignoring it. If icky features like WebUSB and Bluetooth are terrible, users won't notice anyways.
Neither WebUSB nor Bluetooth are standards. There status is literally, and I quote, "It is not a W3C Standard nor is it on the W3C Standards Track. "
> Google's strategy is pressuring Apple to make more capable software.
That's not Google's strategy, and never has been. It's also quite telling you decided to ignore Google's clear anti competitive practices. I guess by sabotaging Firefox they were also "pressuring Firefox into making more capable software or something".
It amazes me to no end that Apple/Safari haters will contort themselves to no end to justify Google because Chrome can do no wrong.
> When a user has more freedom in a browser than they do in their hardware's native runtime
Google couldn't care less about the end user. All Google cares about is its dominance. To that end it doesn't care if it breaks the web [1], or twists it to their liking [2]
[1] Speaking of breaking: Breaking the Web forward https://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2021/08/breaking_th... and Stay Alert https://dev.to/richharris/stay-alert-d but you will ignore these, too. Because it's not "ActiveX or Flash", innit?
[2] People keep mentioning sites like https://whatwebcando.today/ and https://whatpwacando.today/ and they are filled to the brim with APIs that Chrome ships and whose status is "not on any standards track".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Steve Jobs's "Thoughts on Flash," was written when I was a tech at an Apple Store. I remember pulling up crash logs on a customer's computer and showing her over and over that Flash was related to Safari crashing. Flash was garbage on the Mac. Blocking (or not implementing) it on the phone wasn't a grand conspiracy. It was smart business. I'm not denying that they're predatory with the App Store. I'm saying that not…
People honestly believed that Apple could have flipped a switch and make Flash work on iPhone. It was garbage, which couldn’t run on such a puny processor without butchering your battery. Most people were using it for video anyway, and H.264 playback on the browser was well on its way.
I don’t love how other things were locked down, but losing Flash for the open web was an unabashed win.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's "you need to ship whatever features Chrome ships at neck-breaking speed, all consequences be damned". Given that Chrome isn't shipping ActiveX or Flash, what's the issue? Apple and Mozilla decide how (or if) they want to implement each standard. If there's no demand for the feature, it shouldn't be a problem ignoring it. If icky features like WebUSB and Bluetooth are terrible, users won't notice anyways. I've…
> Given that Chrome isn't shipping ActiveX or Flash, what's the issue? What does this have to do with what I wrote? Literally nothing > Apple and Mozilla decide how (or if) they want to implement each standard. For something to become a standard there needs to be consensus, and at least two independent implementations. Just because Chrome ships something doesn't make it a standard. > If there's no demand for the feat…
Everything, really. ActiveX and Flash were proprietary runtimes, which is a real example of a domination play. To my knowledge, Chromium doesn't feature anything that couldn't be reverse-engineered or conditionally re-implimented by third-parties. Maybe some things are nonstandard, but if there's user demand for it then why complain? The native iOS runtime clearly isn't making everyone happy.
> I guess by sabotaging Firefox they were also "pressuring Firefox into making more capable software or something".
Nobody but you has been talking about Chrome's anticompetitive practices in this thread. I might actually agree with you, but I'm not going to discuss it because it's tangential to Apple's own anticompetitive practice.
> Google couldn't care less about the end user. All Google cares about is its dominance.
I'd have an easier time believing you if I couldn't use the web with my Open Source browser.
> but you will ignore these, too.
Both of those posts are actually valid complaints, and they're just as valid when the breakage is on Safari's side. Much as you'd rather minimize it, "who owns the web" is also a valid question when leveled against Apple too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t have an example I can show, unfortunately. I am currently building an app for internal use, and because I’m obsessive about presentation, I ironed out every wrinkle in this department. It’s 100% fluid, there are no layout shifts, no surprises anywhere. You would never know it’s not native. But I will admit it took a lot of effort to hunt down all the little idiosyncrasies and fix them. I think a problem with…
me too it is just totally possible, there are so many web api-s, you just need to be a good programmer and study a lot you will not really find or use big web apps because 1. most companies have already built their native apps with mobile engineers 2. web "programmers" or rather designers are stuck with old tech 3. web apps will start to become strategic targets(!) by most developers/companies if you are sure they ar…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Given that Chrome isn't shipping ActiveX or Flash, what's the issue? What does this have to do with what I wrote? Literally nothing > Apple and Mozilla decide how (or if) they want to implement each standard. For something to become a standard there needs to be consensus, and at least two independent implementations. Just because Chrome ships something doesn't make it a standard. > If there's no demand for the feat…
> What does this have to do with what I wrote? Everything, really. ActiveX and Flash were proprietary runtimes, which is a real example of a domination play. To my knowledge, Chromium doesn't feature anything that couldn't be reverse-engineered or conditionally re-implimented by third-parties. Maybe some things are nonstandard, but if there's user demand for it then why complain? The native iOS runtime clearly isn't…
Nothing at all, really
> To my knowledge, Chromium doesn't feature anything that couldn't be reverse-engineered or conditionally re-implimented by third-parties.
To your knowledge. It's just Chrome-only Chrome-specific code inside a 50-million-line codebase that may or may not depend on very Chrome-specific things.
> Maybe some things are nonstandard, but if there's user demand for it then why complain?
Because you've just literally supplanted standards processes with "whatever Chrome ships is standard now". Are you even aware that Chrome ships 400 new web APIs a year?
> Nobody but you has been talking about Chrome's anticompetitive practices in this thread.
Indeed. Very few people talk about Chrome's practices, period. You could look up the thread why I started talking about Chrome's practices.
> I'd have an easier time believing you if I couldn't use the web with my Open Source browser.
Ah yes. The only thing that's needed for a company doing whatever the hell it wants is to provide the source. Who cares if no one has any say on what gets implemented in that browser. Who cares if even that company admits that no one contributes to that browser: https://twitter.com/RickByers/status/1715568535731155100
I mean, you could use the web with internet Explorer, too, so why complain?
And yes, there's an increasing number of sites (including sites from Google) that carry the "only works in Chrome" or equivalent banner. So no, increasingly I cannot use the web using an open-source browser of my choice.
> Much as you'd rather minimize it, "who owns the web" is also a valid question when leveled against Apple too.
I don't minimize it. I point out the one-sidedness of the judgments leveled against Apple.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> temporary apps Can you not install a native app one day, and uninstall it the next day? Or does it not count as "temporary"? Or are PWAs uninstalling automatically somehow?
I think what was meant is lightweight. Of course a web app can be heavyweight or lightweight just as a native app. Still in a sense that smaller companies might publish smaller apps as web apps to have only one codebase justifies a web app niche for lightweight apps.
> It’s telling that this is the feature that Apple refused to share. And it makes sense: the idea that users could install safe and secure apps that Apple can’t tax, block or control is terrifying to them. I think that’s what this decision is all about. When Safari was the only browser engine on iOS, PWAs didn’t threaten the App Store because Safari delivers a degraded experience with them. With alternative browser e…
Everyone thinks that Apple really cares if you use PWAs? It came out in the Epic trial that 90% of the App Store revenue comes from pay to win games and in app purchases of loot boxes and coins. Those apps aren’t going to be PWAs. If it’s only mean old Apple keeping the great world of cross platform apps using web technologies, why aren’t PWAs more popular on Android?
I also wouldn't bet on games being exclusively native now that cloud gaming is available and WebGPU is in heavy development. Right now cloud gaming is locked out of the iOS App Store but Apple has managed to lock it into Safari.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Flash was a security dumpster fire and wasn't designed for touch interfaces. That said, I don't think Apple - or any other vendor - should be able to prohibit users from running software on devices the user putatively owns. Offer an (optional) walled-garden experience, ok, but locking down users from installing their own software is predatory.
Apple never banned Adobe from making a Flash player app on iPhone. They decided against shipping it as a plug-in for Safari on iOS. The fact that Adobe could not have made a Flash player app (imagine an app which you point an URL at to load its Flash content) helps explains the problem.
