zlacker

[parent] [thread] 19 comments
1. izacus+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-07-26 14:33:19
It didn't happen when Apple did it with Safari (and you all were quiet as a mouse as well, with HN actively defending Apple Safari monopoly with this feature enabled)... so why would NOW be any different?
replies(4): >>tolmas+bN >>kykeon+cO >>toyg+GS >>danShu+5o1
2. tolmas+bN[view] [source] 2023-07-26 17:27:13
>>izacus+(OP)
I am not HN, you'll find no comment of mine defending that (despite, for the record, Apple's system being less bad than this one, while still bad).

NOW would be different because, again, this system is worse than Apple's, and because Chrome has a larger influence on the web than Safari (on Desktop, on mobile its a foregone conclusion since you're not allowed a different engine other than Safari anyways, so the real fight there is allowing third party engines).

Does this answer your concerns? I can't tell if you are defending Apple and Google, or are against both but are using this what-about-ist accusation as a way to vent general frustration.

replies(1): >>gunapo+PZ
3. kykeon+cO[view] [source] 2023-07-26 17:30:15
>>izacus+(OP)
I think the main difference is that Apple already controlled what operating systems can run Safari via other mediums. Adding this to Safari effectively changes nothing regarding the web ecosystem on Apple devices.
4. toyg+GS[view] [source] 2023-07-26 17:44:49
>>izacus+(OP)
Apple don't have enough web properties to force this sort of change.

Google can turn around tomorrow and say that no browser without WEI can access GMail, GMaps, GSheets, Photos etc; people will have to comply, effectively killing any browser that does not support the feature.

This is the problem with the Chromium monoculture. "We", as generic IT people and developers on HN, definitely have a responsibility for not deprecating this monoculture earlier. If you use Brave, you're guilty; if you use Ungoogled Chromium, you're guilty; if you use Safari, you're guilty. It's high time people start taking responsibility.

replies(4): >>pjmlp+UW >>meepmo+yY >>db579+Oi1 >>neural+vv1
◧◩
5. pjmlp+UW[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-26 17:58:08
>>toyg+GS
And everyone that ships an Electron app as well.
replies(1): >>Klonoa+da3
◧◩
6. meepmo+yY[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-26 18:03:41
>>toyg+GS
How are Safari users part of the Chromium monoculture problem?
replies(2): >>smolde+w11 >>toyg+U21
◧◩
7. gunapo+PZ[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-26 18:08:10
>>tolmas+bN
> for the record, Apple's system being less bad than this one, while still bad

Apple's just more subtle than Google.

◧◩◪
8. smolde+w11[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-26 18:14:16
>>meepmo+yY
It's part of the KHTML monoculture that has been harming our industry and holding us back from real progress.
replies(2): >>mschus+j41 >>meepmo+Av1
◧◩◪
9. toyg+U21[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-26 18:19:50
>>meepmo+yY
They support another monopolistic player that would do exactly the same thing.

... oh wait, they already did. They force a monoculture on all the platforms they can get away with, and even shipped this WEI crap already.

◧◩◪◨
10. mschus+j41[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-26 18:24:34
>>smolde+w11
If you want a browser engine it's either one of the KHTML descendants or Firefox. The problem is, both are ridiculously complex, only one family has the backing of three multi-billion dollar giants, and the other infamously suffers from "progressive disease" aka complete unwillingness to move fast and instead preferring to engineer the "perfect" solution.

That even Microsoft couldn't manage to keep up with progress only shows how utterly impossible it would be to kickstart a browser engine.

(The fact that Mozilla as an organization is embedded in constant infighting and utter incompetence doesn't help either)

◧◩
11. db579+Oi1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-26 19:18:56
>>toyg+GS
Google can also decide at any time to put those web properties behind forced logins, or paywalls or just shutter them altogether. If Google doesn't want them to be part of the open web they won't be, regardless of whether this particular set of things is implemented or not. If we're all dependent on them enough that that's a problem for us, then that dependency is the problem.
replies(1): >>toyg+Ix1
12. danShu+5o1[view] [source] 2023-07-26 19:41:31
>>izacus+(OP)
> and you all were quiet as a mouse as well, with HN actively defending Apple Safari monopoly with this feature enabled

Citation? To be sure, there was not universal outrage over Safari's attestation implementation, but out of curiosity I looked up the only thread I was aware of, in part because I couldn't remember what my reaction was at the time. That thread was a year ago and the overwhelming sentiment of the comments section is critical: >>31751203

Here were my comments at the time:

- >>31752980

- >>31753257

- >>31752431

They're less forceful than they are now with Google, partially because I know more now about how attestation works than I did over a year ago, and partially because (as some people have also pointed out) Chrome's implementation is straightforwardly more dangerous than Apple's is.

But HN "actively defending" Safari? That's not the impression I get from the overall comment section and it's definitely not what I personally was doing. There are a lot of people in these comments calling Apple's implementation DRM. So I'm a little skeptical of the "nobody on HN cared about this with Safari" narrative that has sprung up; from what I can see media coverage was fairly positive, but people on HN were rightly critical. I'm not sure the facts match the narrative: Safari was criticized for this.

It's a fair critique that there wasn't a coordinated attempt to outright stop Apple, but I would once again remind everyone that attestation in Chrome is way more dangerous than attestation in iOS. The market matters, that's not context that can be ignored. So it's not really all that weird to me that people are more willing to react more strongly to abusive behavior in Chrome.

◧◩
13. neural+vv1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-26 20:09:10
>>toyg+GS
If they do that then otrer browsers will appear
◧◩◪◨
14. meepmo+Av1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-26 20:09:15
>>smolde+w11
That's kind of a stretch.
replies(1): >>smolde+9H1
◧◩◪
15. toyg+Ix1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-26 20:17:13
>>db579+Oi1
> If Google doesn't want [Gmail etc] to be part of the open web they won't be

The point is not that Google cares about those sites - they don't. Those services are leverage that they use to control web standards, in order to enable their real cash-cow: AdSense. They will use their web properties to shove down our throats anything that makes AdSense more profitable, from the anti-adblock measures in Chrome to this one.

> If we're all dependent on them enough that that's a problem for us, then that dependency is the problem

I don't disagree - and I use Firefox, keep my important mail outside of Gmail, etc etc. But I recognize that many, many people don't, so the technologically literal out there have an ethical responsibility to push back against corruption of the open web.

◧◩◪◨⬒
16. smolde+9H1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-26 20:55:10
>>meepmo+Av1
It's kinda hyperbole, to demonstrate how taut of a claim "Chrome monoculture" is.

We had a shot at open browser engine development with limited scope. Everyone said no, not just Chrome. Mozilla and Apple both have blood on their hands too, if we want to be reductive.

◧◩◪
17. Klonoa+da3[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-27 08:21:50
>>pjmlp+UW
Sigh, no.

We would’ve gotten Electron any other way if it wasn’t Chromium, it’s the only endgame for UI given how native layers shat the bed.

Mozilla also no longer even supports embedding. ;P

replies(1): >>pjmlp+wf3
◧◩◪◨
18. pjmlp+wf3[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-27 09:05:48
>>Klonoa+da3
Speaking as someone that has been doing native and Web for 30 years, it is the only game for developers that couldn't care, and in the process help Chrome to widen its market share and influence.
replies(1): >>Klonoa+Yp3
◧◩◪◨⬒
19. Klonoa+Yp3[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-27 10:30:04
>>pjmlp+wf3
I've been doing this for 20, which is enough to say: rattling off years of experience isn't going to win me over on this point.

> it is the only game for developers that couldn't care

Yeah, dude. Most devs literally do not care, they just want to write and ship stuff. The native stack(s) are not cohesive enough and the numbers do not lie; devs do not want to rewrite the UI n times.

Signed, someone who also does native and web UI dev. ;P

replies(1): >>pjmlp+M64
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
20. pjmlp+M64[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-27 14:31:28
>>Klonoa+Yp3
Then don't complain about Chrome taking over the Web.
[go to top]