undefined | Better HN

0 pointsleptons2mo ago0 comments

>Google is also involved in W3C and do I really need to bring up the topics API as Google attempting to use their position to push their agenda as well?

How is Web Bluetooth an evil agenda of Google??

It's making web browsers more capable. It's not some evil conspiracy to enrich Google. If Apple wants to let the W3C move forward in making it a standard, then all browsers would benefit, and all users that would like to use a bluetooth enabled web-app would benefit.

The only one that benefits from not allowing it to become a standard is Apple, because they get to force developers to make a native app, where Apple can extract a % of sales through the app.

>Just because Google does something it doesn't mean the rest of the industry should follow. If we did that in IE days we would still have ActiveX

IE was the first to implement XMLHTTPRequest. It changed the web fundamentally, and was the basis for "web 2.0". Everyone was glad that they created it, standards or not when it was first implemented.

If we didn't have browser manufacturers pushing the limits, we'd be stuck with "web 1.0" and browsers that did nothing interesting outside of loading animated gifs of dancing babyies.

0 comments

nerdjon2mo ago

> How is Web Bluetooth an evil agenda of Google??

Never said it was, notice how in the thing you quoted I said "Topics API"? That is extremely evil and was only introduced to benefit a single company, Google.

I never made a claim that every single thing on this list that safari does not support is a negative.

> IE was the first to implement XMLHTTPRequest. It changed the web fundamentally, and was the basis for "web 2.0".

Fantastic, that is an example of things working as they are supposed to work.

However IE also introduced things that were not made standard just as equally we celebrated that those things failed.

> If we didn't have browser manufacturers pushing the limits, we'd be stuck with "web 1.0" and browsers that did nothing interesting outside of loading animated gifs of dancing babyies.

Obviously that is true or the companies would not be involved in W3C. But that does not mean that every idea they introduce is necessary in a browser and deserves to be a standard feature. Google alone cannot and should dictate a standard, even though apparently we are fine with them attempting to do just that.

If everyone is in agreement instead of it benefiting a single company.

> The only one that benefits from not allowing it to become a standard is Apple

I would like to point out, once again. That this feature is also not available on Firefox for Android or Desktop. Your argument does not support why Mozilla has not implemented this feature. Which again, makes the "Apple bad" spin on this not as cut and dry.

leptonsOP2mo ago

>Google alone cannot and should dictate a standard, even though apparently we are fine with them attempting to do just that.

They did not "dictate a standard". They saw a good use case for an API and made one for it (Web Bluetooth is what I'm really focused on). If the other W3C members want changes made, then they can make suggestions, and Google or someone else can implement the changes. They can even implement their own API and have a discussion about that. Then they can put their heads together and come up with a spec everyone agrees on. That is how it normally works. Nobody "dictates" as you suggest.

Apple is flat out refusing to let Web Bluetooth move forward based on "Security rEaSoNs", and they are just shutting down the entire feature set.

Where is the security risk when users have to explicitly opt-in to use the feature? I'm sorry if your grandma clicks yes to everything, but blocking my users from the entire feature because your grandma lost her mind years ago is asinine. There is no real security threat posed by Web Bluetooth and I'd love to see you argue how there is when plenty of other existing APIs already ask for permission before you can use them. Fingerprinting can be done in a lot of other ways.

But the real crux of the problem is Apple not allowing other browser engines on their iOS platform. If that changed, I wouldn't care what one company implements or blocks in the W3C.

>I would like to point out, once again. That this feature is also not available on Firefox for Android or Desktop.

I don't care at all what Firefox does or doesn't want. Neither do most people. Firefox also does not block other browser engines from running on iOS, so people are free not to use it. Unfortunately we're not free to use the browser engines we want on iOS.

nerdjon2mo ago

You continue to dwell on Bluetooth while ignoring that there are reasons to not just blindly follow Google which is what pages like this are advocating for. I honestly don't care about Bluetooth and I don't have any stakes on whether or not it is supported, and I also don't know enough about it to actually talk about security on it. I will leave that to people that actually know what they are talking about instead.

I would love if you can actually respond to Topics API and other initiatves that google has attempted that only furthers their agenda, just like you are saying Apple is doing. The fact is both companies are incentivized to do exactly that, and as I have already said both companies do this, and yet you seem to want to give Google a free pass and ignore when they have been problematic.

Regarding Firefox, them not implementing something is a very important piece of the puzzle and you cannot choose to ignore them just to try to strengthen your own argument. This is my fundamental issue with this page since they do not by default show Firefox because it completely breaks the "Apple Bad" narrative they are trying to push.

The fact is, Firefox on both mobile and desktop has not implemented many of the same API's that Safari has not and in some cases has implemented less. The Why there is extremely important because it directly impacts the conversation. Mozilla does not have any of the incentives that either Google has for pushing these features or that Apple has for not implementing them and yet they have chosen not to implement them.

leptonsOP2mo ago

>blindly follow Google

You obviously did not read my comment or understand it, so this pointless internet interaction is over.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse