91–100 of 208 posts
> you have to toggle a setting in WKPreferences called useSystemAppearance... and it's private. So if you use it, say goodbye to App Store approval. is this true? i know very little of iOS development but i swear i remember watching a decompilation of an app that used various internal APIs to provide animated home screen widgets
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's also, in there somewhere, a corollary about how you don't notice the webviews which don't stick out but just don't feel right. Like, someone mentioned Settings app in MacOS might use them because the icons don't load fast enough. I can't help but lament just a little bit. Apple used to be about insane polish. Just think about the mentality that created the rounded screen corners on the original Mac. That's ju…
> Apple used to be about insane polish. I think that's mostly a brand narrative/myth. MacOS has always had warts at any given time.
Providing an OS feature only to first-party programs is a plainly anticompetitive practice. Using your privileged position in one market (cell phones/cell phone operating systems) to gain an advantage in another market (smart phone applications) that you withhold from your competitors is a textbook case.
With whom is Apple competing on their own web pages and apps? And how much advantage does some shiny reflection (which, btw, could also be attained by writing the effect yourself) offer them over that competition? It must be something big and obvious, otherwise there's no way it's illegal, but I can't think of it. If you mean "anti-competitive" without referring to monopolies, then, well, every company does that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Love or hate liquid glass, the paradigm shift from "UI chrome is a wrapper around app content" to "UI is overlayed on top of app content" seems like the future. It's well aligned with AR and better separates UI layout from content for different screen sizes. I'm neutral on this first implementation (some good, some bad). But I think the approach will be picked up by essentially everyone. Good news for you, there's no…
I don't buy it. First, AR is currently aspirational at best. After decades of failures. Second, overlaying translucid UI over content makes separation of UI from content worse, not better. Windows Aero tried that 2 decades ago and, while it looked cool, they reverted. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Aero
I know, it barely qualifies as AR... but while I love watching the bleeding edge of tech, I'm glad overall that we're slow-rolling this kind of thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
iOS has many private APIs, this one is no different. The fact it's implemented in WebKit is a red herring.
So when Google creates self-serving APIs in a web browser engine, it's anti-consumer and is killing the free web. But when Apple creates self-serving APIs in a web browser engine, it's just another private entitlement, a red herring and their right as the proprietor of Safari. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
It appears that this particular API is restricted to embedded webviews, too (doesn’t work in Safari), so it has no bearing on the open web, unlike APIs such as WebUSB in Chrome.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The Toupée Theory of In-App Webviews" is perfect. I might change it in the post.
you write really well OP! please keep it up.
In the meantime (hey, it's already a thread of self-promotion) my last writeup was about the native views WKWebView generates when you use hardware accelerated CSS transforms:
https://alastair.is/learning-about-what-happens-when-you-use...
Apple themselves run into these exact cases and develop a compromise for themselves, while at the same time telling third party developers that aren't allowed to use the exact same compromise, and they MUST use Apple's native UI if they want liquid glass...
Providing an OS feature only to first-party programs is a plainly anticompetitive practice. Using your privileged position in one market (cell phones/cell phone operating systems) to gain an advantage in another market (smart phone applications) that you withhold from your competitors is a textbook case.
What are your thoughts on computer hardware which is much more restrictive? Video game consoles, for example, require all code to be cryptographically signed, meaning that third parties can't publish any software whatsoever without the blessing of the console manufacturer.
More broadly, and not based on antitrust grounds but on property rights grounds, I am opposed to every kind of DRM. First, it should be legal to circumvent any and all DRM/anti-copying measures. Second, it should be illegal to deprive the next owner of their property rights so that you can exert ownership control over a product past its sale.
If I buy a computer, do nothing but install a keylogging rootkit on it, and sell it on to someone else, I would rightly risk jail time. "The malware is part of the product" is not a valid excuse. DRM is also malware. It should be prosecuted as such, and if existing legislation is found wanting, more specific laws need to be written.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait so are all non-standard CSS attributes "anticompetitive"? This seems like wild hyperbole. Is Google's "-webkit-tap-highlight-color" also anticompetitive? Should we ban the current practice of shipping proprietary CSS attributes while sometimes also proposing them for standardization? It's just really hard for me to read that as a legit complaint.
If you use this CSS liquid glass effect in your app, Apple will reject it from the App Store. If Apple uses this CSS liquid glass effect in their apps, it'll pass App Store review just fine. Do you see the issue now?
Do you have any evidence of this claim? It's possible that neither Apple or third party developers are able to ship apps through the app store with it.