zlacker

>>jaffat+(OP)
Safari engineers have attended all service worker working group meetings, and they do contribute. However, I do share the frustrations over transparency.

It's tough to get developers to care about things like offline-first, because it's tough for them to convince managers to allow them to spend time on a feature that won't work on iOS (since it won't work in Safari, and Apple has banned other browser engines on their platform).

Ultimately it's users that lose out but also the web as a platform, as it pushes people, like the author of the article, towards walled-garden solutions like native apps.

Apple is looking for service worker use-cases, so if it's something you're interested in, let them know https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2017-July/0292....

>>jaffat+66
This is not surprising of Apple. They've always been a walled garden, that's why I don't buy their products. I like to own products that give me full control as a user.

When the iPod came out, I never understood why I couldn't just drag the music files directly onto the device and I had to get iTunes and use iTune's tedious interface.

Now they have the app store; another unnecessary restriction. As a developer, it's nice to own an Android phone because I can just run whatever code I want on it and I don't need to buy any special licenses, hardware or proprietary SDKs to do that.

>>crypti+5b
The "walled garden" is what prevents the horrendous disjointed mess that is the Android phone market. Sure, for a guy who likes hacking around stuff, it's fun for you. But for everyone else, there is a thousand different phones, with a thousand different interfaces, all running different versions of the Android OS, that will never be updated by the phone manufacturer.

I understand where you're coming from, I do. But when it comes to a phone, I greatly prefer the standardized hardware/interface/OS over the free for all. I hate to use the "it just works" nonsense, but that is exactly what it does.

Working in the Enterprise, the iPhone is infinitely easier for us to troubleshoot, and manage. Because everyone is running the same thing.

>>overca+sk
> The "walled garden" is what prevents the horrendous disjointed mess that is the Android phone market. Sure, for a guy who likes hacking around stuff, it's fun for you. But for everyone else, there is a thousand different phones, with a thousand different interfaces, all running different versions of the Android OS, that will never be updated by the phone manufacturer.

This is a non-sequitur. Fragmentation of Android OS versions isn't caused by Android letting you use web apps.

>>euyyn+Lp
I was responding to the first two lines of their comment. If they are going to divert that way, then I'm going to respond to it.

>>overca+Pq
You're not making sense to me. u/jondubois dislikes the walled garden, which is the inability to run apps that don't go through Apple's app store (with the corresponding review and fees).

You respond to those two lines by saying that the walled garden prevents fragmentation.

It does not.

* If you were unable to run apps other than via the Google Play Store in Android phones, the OS versions would still be fragmented. App developers have nothing to do with that.

* If only Google manufactured and updated Android phones (hence no fragmentation), you would still be able to run whatever you wanted in the phone. "Walled garden" doesn't mean "closed source".

>>euyyn+jX
The walled garden absolutely prevents fragmentation.

Apple has on multiple occasions over the years removed apps from the stores that weren't updated to use the latest iOS SDK. This meant that since all apps are targeting the latest iOS there is little impediment to moving the entire platform forward.

>>threes+Ii1
Ah OK, I see that point now. But Android's fragmentation isn't due to the users being unwilling to update, to keeps their apps working. It's because it used to cost a lot to OEMs and carriers to port their drivers etc to the new versions.