Comment by JimDabell

Comment by JimDabell a day ago

27 replies

This is not true yet, but it’s getting close.

The pattern is this:

- Google publishes a specification.

- They raise request for feedback from the Mozilla and WebKit teams.

- Mozilla and WebKit find security and privacy problems.

- Google deploys their implementation anyway.

- This functionality gets listed on sites like whatpwacando.today

- Web developers complain about Safari being behind and accuse Apple of holding back the web.

- Nobody gives a shit about Firefox.

So we have two key problems, but neither of them are “Google controls the standards bodies”. The problem is that they don’t need to.

Firstly, a lot of web developers have stopped caring about the standards process. Whatever functionality Google adds is their definition of “the web”. This happened at the height of Internet Explorer dominance too. A huge number of web developers would happily write Internet Explorer-only sites and this monoculture damaged the web immensely. Chrome is the new Internet Explorer.

The second problem is that nobody cares about Firefox any more. The standards process doesn’t really work when there are only two main players. At the moment, you can honestly say “Look, the standards process is that any standard needs two interoperable implementations. If Google can’t convince anybody outside of Google to implement something, it can’t be a standard.” This makes the unsuitability of those proposals a lot plainer to see.

But now that Firefox market share has vanished, that argument is turning into “Google and Apple disagree about whether to add functionality to the web”. This hides the unsuitability of those proposals. This too has happened before – this is how the web worked when Internet Explorer was battling Netscape Navigator for dominance in the 90s, where browsers were adding all kinds of stupid things unilaterally. Again, Chrome is the new Internet Explorer.

The web standards process desperately needs either Firefox to regain standing or for a new independent rendering engine (maybe Ladybird?) to arise. And web developers need to stop treating everything that Google craps out as if it’s a done deal. Google don’t and shouldn’t control the definition of the web. We’ve seen that before, and a monoculture like that paralyses the industry.

pjmlp a day ago

They are at the edge of transforming the Web into ChromeOS Platform, with the complacency of everyone that helped it become a reality.

  • flkenosad 20 hours ago

    At least chromeos is open source. We can fork it anytime. You'd rather everyone run ios or windows?

    • carlhjerpe 20 hours ago

      Open source in code but not in spirit, you "can't" contribute to ChromeOS without being a Google employee or some special person

GoblinSlayer 20 hours ago

webdev in 2005: webapp spa just werk everywhere, and werk fast and efficiently, only add these 20 lines of code for compatibility :3

webdev in 2025: OMGWTF NOTHING WORKS WITHOUT THIS NEW SHINY FEATURE RELEASED YESTERDAY AAAAAAAAA!!!!!111

bergfest 21 hours ago

Why not forbid them to ship any non-standard feature in their pre-installed default build of Chrome? Experimental features could be made available in a developer build, that would have to be manually installed in a non-obvious way, so that they cannot gain traction before standardization.

carlosjobim a day ago

> Firstly, a lot of web developers have stopped caring about the standards process. Whatever functionality Google adds is their definition of “the web”.

Businesses who hire such web developers will lose huge amounts of sales, since 90% of visitors are on mobile and half of those are on Safari.

  • JimDabell a day ago

    How do you think that’s going to play out once Apple are legally barred from mandating WebKit on iOS?

    • pjmlp a day ago

      Web will finally become ChromeOS, takeover goal achieved.

      • paulryanrogers a day ago

        Or other engines gain a foothold and web devs have to go back to standards.

    • carlosjobim a day ago

      I think most people will continue using the default Safari browser.

      • internet2000 a day ago

        That’s not how it played out on desktop and it isn’t how it will play out on mobile.

        • immibis 21 hours ago

          I use Chrome on Android because it's the default browser and I'm lazy, not because I actually like it. When a phone forces me to choose one I'm not very likely to choose Chrome. It's going to be the same for iOS users.

whywhywhywhy a day ago

> Mozilla and WebKit find security and privacy problems

This is a little disingenuous because Apple often falsely claims security when it’s to hold back tech that could loosen the App Store grasp.

  • JimDabell a day ago

    Can you give an example?

    Generally speaking, when Apple rejects a proposal, Mozilla do too. What’s Mozilla’s motivation for doing this and lying about it?

    • whywhywhywhy 5 hours ago

      Web Bluetooth, which would allow hardware to be setup through a website instead you're forced to ship an app to iOS if you're a hardware maker.

      • JimDabell 4 hours ago

        Why are you avoiding my point?

        This is what Mozilla has to say about Web Bluetooth:

        > This API provides access to the Generic Attribute Profile (GATT) of Bluetooth, which is not the lowest level of access that the specifications allow, but its generic nature makes it impossible to clearly evaluate. Like WebUSB there is significant uncertainty regarding how well prepared devices are to receive requests from arbitrary sites. The generic nature of the API means that this risk is difficult to manage. The Web Bluetooth CG has opted to only rely on user consent, which we believe is not sufficient protection. This proposal also uses a blocklist, which will require constant and active maintenance so that vulnerable devices aren't exploited. This model is unsustainable and presents a significant risk to users and their devices.

        https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#web-bluetooth

        Again: Generally speaking, when Apple rejects a proposal, Mozilla do too. What’s Mozilla’s motivation for doing this and lying about it?

    • TsiCClawOfLight a day ago

      Apple actively removed PWA features to prevent feature parity with native apps.

      • JimDabell a day ago

        Which PWA features did Apple and Mozilla remove on security grounds? What was Mozilla’s justification? What’s your justification for claiming they lied about it and it wasn’t for security reasons?

  • immibis 21 hours ago

    PWA is an antifeature anyway; it's an operating system inside a browser. This benefits companies that have market-dominant browsers and do not have operating systems; on a technical level it's just stupid.

    • carlhjerpe 20 hours ago

      I love PWAs when the alternative is Electron, I'd rather let one browser instance run my crapps since it improves memory sharing and other resource utilization.

      I really like being able to install websites as apps too so my WM can manage them independently.