Comment by 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.
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.
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?
Apple actively removed PWA features to prevent feature parity with native apps.
One touted security feature is that app store gatekeeps malware. It's praised as a killer feature of apple echosystem.
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.
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?