Slashdot Mirror


'Apple's Refusal To Support Progressive Web Apps is a Detriment To Future of the Web' (medium.com)

From a blog post: Progressive Web Applications (PWAs) are one of the most exciting and innovative things happening in web development right now. PWAs enable you to use JavaScript to create a "Service Worker", which gives you all sorts of great features that you'd normally associate with native apps, like push notifications, offline support, and app loading screens -- but on the web! Awesome. Except for is one major problem -- While Google has embraced the technology and added support for it in Chrome for Android, Apple has abstained from adding support to mobile Safari. All they've done is say that it is "Under Consideration." Seemingly no discussion about it whatsoever.

302 comments

  1. Who uses Safari? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Don't Apple users use Chrome also? Now's a good time to start if they want all these new gimmicks. I say we should stick with good old basic HTML, or even go back to Hypercard...

    1. Re:Who uses Safari? by InvalidsYnc · · Score: 2, Informative

      I believe that Chrome on iOS is still using the same underlying technologies of Safari, not 100% certain that it is a completely separate code base there. More like a skinning.

    2. Re:Who uses Safari? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      true. I use firefox everywhere but still it's just a wrapper around safari view. And they don't allow content blockers. ABP works only in safari and not in firefox. FU Timmy!

    3. Re:Who uses Safari? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chrome and Safari both use webkit, with varying levels of support for different things, with Safari usually lagging behind or outright refusing support for some features. Can be frustrating, but that's what polyfills and message passing are all about. And speaking of message passing, at least for iOS development, Safari lacking some of these features isn't that big of a deal, because you can always handle things like notifications and most everything else outside of the webview. Would be nice if Apple spent some of its R&D budget on better Safari debugging, like giving us a proper farking window.onerror(), or opening private APIs that allow proper customization. Then again, at this point, I'm almost convinced Apple hates developers.

    4. Re: Who uses Safari? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it wasn't bloated javascript it would be some other bloated code base, all in the name of monetization.

    5. Re:Who uses Safari? by scdeimos · · Score: 1

      Hybrid apps on iOS, such as those based on Cordova and PhoneGap, are rendered in a UIWebView control (https://developer.apple.com/documentation/uikit/uiwebview) which is basically a frameless Safari instance. You don't get to choose to run those things in Chrome unless you bundle your own version of Chrome with the app, which Apple would almost certainly refuse to accept in the App Store.

    6. Re:Who uses Safari? by tepples · · Score: 1

      It's possible to make JavaScript that's not as bloated as the scripts deployed on some popular websites. But if you deem all JavaScript to be bloat by definition, would you rather have JavaScript or "This native application is available for platforms X, Y, and Z, but not the platform you are using"?

    7. Re:Who uses Safari? by swilver · · Score: 1

      I would *shrug*, realize that it's likely a piece of junk anyway that probably is either spying on me or trying to waste my time, and uninstall that shit.

      It's like permissions. Do I like your app? Maybe. Do I like it enough to allow it to place phonecalls, read my CC details, contacts, my browser history, execute arbitrary code in background threads, etc..?

      No fucking way.

    8. Re:Who uses Safari? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ideally, I'd have rather something like Java actually took off - a platform neutral efficient sandboxed environment that wasn't as messed up as HTML-dom-JavaScript combined with messy things like Electron and node.js and what not.

      (Yeh, perhaps not Java exactly, but something LIKE java. Honestly, .Net is fairly close; but lacks actual solid cross-platform implementations for desktop applications.)

    9. Re: Who uses Safari? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Safari is the new IE6.

  2. DO NOT WANT!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    who the shit would want this?

    1. Re: DO NOT WANT!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nobody. Nobody wants anything "push". Everybody hates loading screens. If sw even have a splash screen, it is TOO SLOW.

      Ad people may want push, that drives this. Too bad for them, I turn js off.

    2. Re: DO NOT WANT!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slightly confused by this. The app is going to take time to load regardless of whether or not there's a splash screen. This is true of both web and native apps. With native apps it's rare for the "splash screen" to be blank white screen. It's also rare for native apps to periodically take over your whole display with a blank white screen after pressing a button or interacting with the app in some way. Instead of making you stare at a blank white screen as the app first loads and periodically as you interact with it there is a splash screen and a proper transition between steps that typically improves perceived performance and has negligible impact on actual performance.

    3. Re: DO NOT WANT!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the expectation is that the loading screens would only be used to show things we don't care to see...like ads. I would rather watch the page paint that see an ad...

    4. Re: DO NOT WANT!!!! by skids · · Score: 1

      Well one perspective on this might be: if the app takes noticeable time to load on modern hardware to some sort of useful starting point, it's either too bloated or is running on a VM/platform that is too bloated, or it is poorly modularized.

    5. Re: DO NOT WANT!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, too bad for them you're missing out...

      this does not mean what you think it means

    6. Re: DO NOT WANT!!!! by dnaumov · · Score: 1

      Indeed. If I want notifications and whatthefucknot, I can install the app. If I am browsing your service in web browser, just take the fucking hint already.

    7. Re: DO NOT WANT!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If an app takes a noticeable time to load, it should stay out of the way so I can do something else while it finishes loading.

    8. Re:DO NOT WANT!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely...why would ANYBODY want this?

      Let me just say it: it's a REALLY stupid idea.

    9. Re: DO NOT WANT!!!! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Slightly confused by this. The app is going to take time to load regardless of whether or not there's a splash screen.

      Without the splash screen, we're at the very least saving the time to load the splash screen.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re: DO NOT WANT!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like 10 years ago there were fake loading screens with ads already, on some javascript or flash enabled web pages.
      Nothing stops "web apps" to bother you with a loading screen. Common is to just show you a spinner. Visit some modern web pages with javascript enabled and you'll just see the spinner or similar doodad.

    11. Re: DO NOT WANT!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *visit some modern web pages with javascript disabled

  3. Loading screens. by tietokone-olmi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's 2017 and programs still have a "loading screen".

    Idiots, all of you.

    1. Re:Loading screens. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Dude, apple needs to support this kick ass new technology so that websites can have splash screens. It's the least they can do after they killed off flash, the previous kick ass technology enabling the awesomeness of splash pages!

    2. Re:Loading screens. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. Because going to a website and having to sit through a self-important "Look how technologically sophisticated we are!" loading screen until you can click on the link that takes you to the real home page that actually shows you information you care about is so useful. A website exists to present useful content to the user, and if you make your root hostname page a light show that doesn't present anything useful -- in the user's judgement, not that of the company behind the website -- then they'll just change all their links to point to the page behind the light show and never have to sit through it again, making all the effort put into the 'splash page' worthless. If you make the splash page part of the home page, so that you can't go to the home page without sitting through the splash page, they'll just link deeper into the site, and if you configure the site so that it shows the splash page before loading the page they really want, you'll wind up driving people away completely. I remember when websites had flashy splash pages you had to click through and clever and unique Flash-based animated interfaces; there's a reason why they've, for the most part, disappeared.

    3. Re:Loading screens. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Compare: modern application startup time on windows 10 (or 7 if you prefer) 4Ghz processor with SSD and DDR4 memory, vs similar application on windows 95 era pentium 133 with SDRAM and an IDE hard drive.

      How the fuck did we get here 2017?

    4. Re:Loading screens. by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      the truly l337 and browser-tech agnostic way of having app loading screens is to implement them as animated GIFS.

    5. Re:Loading screens. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's needed to hide the latency of launching Safari before the app can show anything. It wouldn't be needed if web apps were first-class citizens and a layout engine would be part of the core OS. So "idiots" are only at Apple.

    6. Re:Loading screens. by shmlco · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I do not want web apps to be "first class" citizens. We got rid of Flash precisely because of the security issues giving unknown apps system-level access entailed...

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    7. Re:Loading screens. by epyT-R · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Fuck web apps as 'first class' citizens. If you want that level of control over the user's machine, then the user should have that level of control over access and use of the software. The last thing I'd want is a 'web app' having control of my system's layout/rendering layer.

      Currently, users understand web sites as ephemeral, as any services they provide can disappear at any time, and like users, developers see them as something they can change at any time. This is very different from conventional standalone programs, where users see them as something they have control over (and can thus trust more), and developers see them as for-pay version upgrades. Blurring this line is consumer hostile.

    8. Re:Loading screens. by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      The correct answer is probably a mix of "high level languages", "OOP", "libraries" and "frameworks".

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    9. Re:Loading screens. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't understand your concerns. By default, web apps get no access. If some shady web app requires every possible permission and you grant them all, then you deserve what you get. FirefoxOS had web apps as first class citizens, and I don't think that it failed because of security concerns.

    10. Re:Loading screens. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah. Time to switch back to safari.

    11. Re:Loading screens. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bad or lazy developers and designers adding more "features", relying on frameworks on top of frameworks, ignoring critical thinking and not culling what is not needed.

      That is how we got here.

      You can witness it firsthand year by year on the internet archive by looking at popular web pages. They start with handcrafted html that is byte-level sensitive. Then automated generators and css that add no functionality, on to plugins, php where it isn't needed, endless javascript. Now even the most basic websites need to load scripts from half a dozen domains and relies on layered frameworks. Not to mention the endless threat vectors this brings.

      Web pages that were once less that 1KB sans media are now over 10MB and have dozens of single points of failure with no discernible increase in usability or features. Even slashdot became this way.

      Go to slashdot.org, it tries to load from:
      fsdn.com
      pro-market.net
      slashdotmedia.com
      stacksocial.com
      janrain.com
      taboola.com
      truste.com
      multiple subdomains of cloudfront.net
      ml314.com
      rpxnow.com
      google-analytics.com
      crsspxl.com

      There are one or more scripts running from each, I don't know how many, I block them. Just to get slashdot to render properly 2,524 CSS rules must be loaded. Why is there a 123KB "app.css" file of 1204 rules that must load?

      What a mess. We ought to be following best-practices, saying "No" more often to marketing, vendors, pr, sales, and the army of people in IT that don't have the talent need to get the boot.

    12. Re:Loading screens. by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 4, Informative

      Jon Blow talks about this -- Why does it take Photoshop about 7 seconds to display your image on a modern computer???

      Jonathan Blow "Making Game Programming Less Terrible" Talk at Reboot Develop 2017

      > How the fuck did we get here 2017?

      Lazy programmers who don't giving a fuck about the user experience. i.e. Bloated C++ and OOP as opposed to DOD (Data Orientated Design.)

    13. Re:Loading screens. by mysidia · · Score: 0

      I do not want web apps to be "first class" citizens.

      Even native apps should no longer be "first class" citizens. Sandbox everything 100%, FTW.

    14. Re:Loading screens. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My startup times for Win10 and common applications like web browsers are MUCH faster now than in the P133 days. I suggest you look into what's slowing your shit down, and fix it.

    15. Re:Loading screens. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dare you to find a "similar" application from 1995 that would load faster.

    16. Re:Loading screens. by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Currently, users understand web sites as ephemeral, as any services they provide can disappear at any time...

      Bless your dear sweet little heart.

    17. Re:Loading screens. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Telemetry. Most of current applications use the Adobe's or some other vendors telemetry components. And those components are being called from every single action an application does and especially the startup phase is full of calls. And since the spyware vendors are just being lazy and incompetent, their crap slows down everything. Eg. the Adobes telemetry crap does synchronous HTTP transactions when app calls it, so no wonder it slows applications.

    18. Re:Loading screens. by tietokone-olmi · · Score: 2

      Look, even Safari shouldn't take more than 1/60 of a second to start. It's a web browser that starts to a blank page; it shouldn't spend two seconds figuring out which part is elbow and which is arse.

      Two seconds is like, 4 billion clock cycles on a single ARM core. On desktops it's far more. Multicore programs can spend cycles on other cores as well. And it shouldn't fucking take a hundred million clocks to fucking start a fucking program to its fucking first empty screen.

    19. Re:Loading screens. by Kkloe · · Score: 1

      sounds like flashpages\java applets all over again

    20. Re:Loading screens. by tietokone-olmi · · Score: 0

      Jon Blow only knows about micro-optimizations. Worse, his are the ones from the Pentium era, when instruction pairing was significant and syscalls were bloody slow.

      As such, he'll fall victim to architectural bloat just as previous prophet-wannabes have, and then he'll have no idea how to paint himself out again. His preemptive solutions will be worthless, and his fixes will be a decade out of date at birth.

    21. Re:Loading screens. by tietokone-olmi · · Score: 2

      My hypothesis is that the so-called Java Generation was taught from their individual beginnings to always go further from "low-level" code. Subsequently the definition of "low level" has changed so that e.g. setting parameters in a template engine to generate HTML on server side is considered "low level" and beneath the programmer (or, more likely, too scary to get into).

      They fear the computer. So they resort to bloat in order to make it less frightening. In truth we've had MMUs in every computer since the mid-nineties, so their worries and their anthropomorphized segfaults have been pointless since (typically) before their births.

      Like I said: idiots.

    22. Re:Loading screens. by tietokone-olmi · · Score: 1

      > Sandbox everything 100%, FTW.

      This is a pretty nice ideal until you gotta feed a program something that another program output. Like a PDF file generated by dvipdfmx (or some such), to a PDF reader (like mupdf).

      Unless each program is intended to be its own little fiefdom, dealing in at most persistent application state. But those are knick-knacks and games at best.

    23. Re: Loading screens. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why single page websites are a thing now, so you have to sit through the splash screen every goddamn time.

    24. Re:Loading screens. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1000

    25. Re:Loading screens. by lactose99 · · Score: 1

      Back to bed grandpa

      --
      Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
    26. Re:Loading screens. by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Whatever you say, great grandpa.

    27. Re:Loading screens. by xanthos · · Score: 1

      Add to that "Web/App/Content Developers" instead of Programmers.

      Programmers program computers. The other group circle jerks.

      --
      Average Intelligence is a Scary Thing
    28. Re:Loading screens. by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      Of all that crap, fsdn.com is the only one that's not strictly harmful. These days, "deny by default" is not only a security measure, it also means less work telling ads from non-ads.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    29. Re:Loading screens. by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Yes, it really does.

    30. Re:Loading screens. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Go to slashdot.org, it tries to load from:

      Funny. I have exactly zero of those domains on my Javascript whitelist, and Slashdot works just fine.

    31. Re:Loading screens. by tepples · · Score: 1

      Your shell application would request the generated PDF from dvipdfmx's space and send it to mupdf's space.

    32. Re:Loading screens. by retchdog · · Score: 1

      correct, if by "circle jerks", you mean "makes money hand-over-fist giving people what they want".

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    33. Re:Loading screens. by retchdog · · Score: 1

      that's not laziness. that's how "free" services get funded nowadays. most of that has nothing to do with rendering the actual content; it's to farm statistics and show ads, which is where the vast majority of the money comes from.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    34. Re:Loading screens. by retchdog · · Score: 1

      sure, user experience is great, as long as it doesn't add even 1% overhead to the timetable or budget. it's provably more efficient (i.e. more short-term profit) to just shovel shit faster than the other guy.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    35. Re:Loading screens. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      We ought to be following best-practices, saying "No" more often to marketing, vendors, pr, sales

      They're the ones who get to say 'no' and show you the door, because they're the ones who pony up the money that it takes to do anything.

    36. Re:Loading screens. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Jon Blow

      Please. It's JBlow. ;)

    37. Re:Loading screens. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Jon Blow only knows about micro-optimizations. Worse, his are the ones from the Pentium era, when instruction pairing was significant and syscalls were bloody slow.

      Riiiight. Because his games at the time of their release are so dog-slow and unplayable, what with their reliance on MMX tricks and assumptions that only work on single core systems.

      Someone who has the chops to actually do low-level optimization is still valuable in this day and age. I mean, look at all the "native apps" that are nothing more than an ENORMOUS Electron wrapper around a web page that takes hundreds (if not thousands) of MB and constantly eats many tenths of your available CPU time to display a buddy list and a gussied-up AIM chat window.

      JBlow's a smart guy who knows his stuff. I bet you a nickel that his knowledge is more up to date than you give him credit for.

    38. Re:Loading screens. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      If some shady web app requires every possible permission and you grant them all, then you deserve what you get

      Well, most people will "deserve what they get" and thus computers and web apps will be failures for not meeting the needs of most people, because that is what most people will do. They'll click the 'yes' because they just want to run their programs, not argue with some computer sec guy about the wisdom of what they might do.

    39. Re:Loading screens. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Currently, users understand web sites as ephemeral, as any services they provide can disappear at any time...

      Bless your dear sweet little heart.

      Users who doing understand that are sweet summer children, but they're shortly disproven of their naivete.

    40. Re: Loading screens. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still make single page websites that don't have a line of CSS or JavaScript, but as expected, only my mom visits them.

    41. Re:Loading screens. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We ought to be following best-practices, saying "No" more often to marketing, vendors, pr, sales

      They're the ones who get to say 'no' and show you the door, because they're the ones who pony up the money that it takes to do anything.

      We shouldn't follow best practices? Pull the other one.

      Marketing is a cost center.
      Vendors are explicitly cost.
      Public relations is a cost center.
      Sales takes other people's money.

      All of them demand and none of them create.

      Tech existed and the internet spread without them. By cowtowing to their demands, malware, program bloat, ransomware, and more has an ever increasing cost for no benefit. Tech existed without them. They can no longer exist without tech.

      They will eventually all be replaced by small shell scripts.

      Fuck em.

    42. Re:Loading screens. by XparXnoiaX · · Score: 1

      How much do you want to bet within five years people will be wishing for Flash back, because it was so much better than what we end up with?

      --
      Irresponsible disclosure is responsible
    43. Re:Loading screens. by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      correct, if by "what they want", you mean "what they are sure they can get away with".

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    44. Re:Loading screens. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you meant "naysayer88".

    45. Re: Loading screens. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the picture on them is her tits.

    46. Re:Loading screens. by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      Slashdot is the only web site I visit that has a shutdown sequence. No kidding. Every time I try to close the browser window, the message "Working..." appears at the bottom of the screen and the window refuses to close until it's done. I'm guessing here, but apparently there's some code to send telemetry back to /., and if it stalls, the browser/tab simply cannot be closed without using Task Manager. Why do web browsers even allow this behavior?

      Never mind loading screens, now web pages need shutdown sequences, too. Insane!

    47. Re:Loading screens. by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      Lazy programmers who don't giving a fuck about the user experience.

      Everyone related to UX is guilty, not just programmers. Merely hearing the word "experience" is enough to get me flipping tables.

    48. Re:Loading screens. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares if photoshop takes 7 seconds to start? You are going to keep it open for hours.

      If you just want to quickly show a picture the problem is that photoshop is not the correct program for that.

    49. Re:Loading screens. by houghi · · Score: 1

      What I do is use http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/ho... but not as a hosts file. I have my own DNS server set up and do a daily update.

      Are there no simple DNS servers that only listen on localhost and where you could add this.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    50. Re:Loading screens. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Both Capsicum and the Apple Sandbox framework are designed support dynamically granting running applications access to specific files from outside. In Capsicum, you simply pass a file descriptor to the file over a UNIX domain socket. In the Apple Sandbox framework, you have APIs to dynamically add the path to that file to the process's ACL (these are integrated into things like the open file dialog and are easy to add to a command-line tool).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    51. Re:Loading screens. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's also how non-free services make money. eBay is getting worse and worse, more and more of the site doesn't work if you run ublock origin, or if you noscript away Google. Not being able to use eBay without being spied upon by Google is like not being able to buy things at the flea market without being watched by... god, I keep trying to come up with retail conglomerates to use as an example and they've all gone out of business. You get the point, it's insane.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    52. Re: Loading screens. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd bet some positive value. flash was horrible and it deserves to stay dead. the concept has some redeeming values, but if you don't start developing a system like that with security in mind from the ground up, it's very likely to fail sooner rather than later

    53. Re:Loading screens. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, but when you say THE money, it's not money to the original website or content (perhaps a tiny crumb to them). Instead, the money is being made by third party statistics companies who's services are riding on the coat tales of the already existing website.

      So in other words, parasitic bloat. As correctly identified by OP.

      It's like bringing a bunch of other people to my office & saying "Hey this place was working fine before, but my friends here need to make money so they'll be sitting in the hallway observing things & taking up space- and you will siphon some of your paycheck to them, OK?".

    54. Re:Loading screens. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      THAT is what people want???

      No wonder I don't understand humans.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    55. Re:Loading screens. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Don't want me at your site? Ok.

      NEXT!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    56. Re:Loading screens. by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      Agreed, the parallel with Flash is apt.

    57. Re:Loading screens. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i don't even have slashdot.org in my javascript whitelist and slashdot works just fine.

      if ever some marketing drone at whoever the fuck slashdot's owner is these days decides it would be a good idea if /. requires javascript that'll be the last day i visit here.

    58. Re:Loading screens. by retchdog · · Score: 1

      i really doubt that it's pure charity or even pure nepotism. if businesses were not making more money from the increased reach (or even just selling out their audience), they wouldn't be doing it. even if they only got 20% (which btw is not true), 20% of something is still more than 0% of the same thing.

      it's probably not a viable long-term strategy, but, hey, it's what the boom-and-bust cycle does.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    59. Re:Loading screens. by retchdog · · Score: 1

      it is true that everyone has in them their own pantheon of chthonic gods and daemons of every stripe, playing out in the theatre of their mind a psychopomp of unbearable weight and poignancy.

      the trick is to ignore that shit and just sell them bullshit apps and trinkets when they're too tired to think too hard. technically, they "want" them since they wouldn't buy them otherwise, right?

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    60. Re:Loading screens. by chihowa · · Score: 1

      What I do is use http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/ho......

      I use that URL too, but I use it in the referrer field whenever I visit uBlock or JS Blocker to grab them. I hear that's how APK gets his wings.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    61. Re:Loading screens. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      I'm very sorry, truly I am, but there are usually five other people ready, willing, and "able"* to take your place. Such is the nature of IT.

      * "Able" having multiple meanings -- if the other person isn't crazy expensive and can do at least a half-assed job, that usually suffices.

    62. Re:Loading screens. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bad or lazy developers and designers adding more "features", relying on frameworks on top of frameworks

      Nonsense. Computers are fast enough to run my personal web framework. Clearly no one else has ever thought along these lines, so there couldn't possibly be hundreds of other programs and websites running their own bloated framework on the system, meaning that rather than this tremendous processing power buckling under the strain of inefficient programming growing with it, the computer can accommodate whatever I throw at it, no matter how many megabytes it takes to load a blank page with my system. Why, I can eat 15GB of 16GB of RAM and clearly cause no problems! I can - nay, must - run all the abstraction layers I want!

      </sarcasm>

    63. Re:Loading screens. by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > Who cares if photoshop takes 7 seconds to start?

      Because it shows you don't respect the user's time..

      It is precisely because of morons like you that even though computers are now 1,000 times faster (from 1 MHz to over 1,000 MHz) that they are STILL slow.

      > You are going to keep it open for hours.

      False. That is an _assumption_ that _your_ workflow is how everyone uses it.

      That RAM is being wasted instead of being used more efficiently for _other_ things, such as a disk cache, etc.

    64. Re:Loading screens. by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Probably the network. Photoshop nowadays has to call home before it will start. Back when the Pentium 133 was king, Adobe could only dream of DRM like that.

    65. Re:Loading screens. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You have people lining up that can debug and patch obfuscated multithreaded applications you don't have the source code for? Send them over, we need some more like that too!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    66. Re:Loading screens. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But we had C++, Visual Basic 5 and 6 and .dll in those days :)

      Surely we need someone to make an open source cross-platform VB6 clone. It made a clean, fast GUI app in like 30 lines of code and the runtime dll would about fit on a floppy.
      The Pentium 133 on Windows 95 allowed to run all that bloat at lightning speed.

      high level, OOP, libraries, bloat and incompetent programmers were the mainstay of bloated 1MB apps.

    67. Re:Loading screens. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People feels smart that buying a quad core 64bit, 1GB RAM, OpenGL ES 3.0 and 8GB flash phone allows them to do about the same multimedia things we did in 1999 with a single core 32bit, 80MB RAM and 3.2GB hard drive. They do get a bit more pixels and jingle-like sound effects, and 5 million or 8 million pixels in their webcam.

    68. Re:Loading screens. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks. "RAM is cheap" is nonsense, 16GB RAM is one month worth of food.

    69. Re:Loading screens. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For years I went to a flea market surrounding a large basilica :)
      So yea, when you buy things at the flea market you're watched by god. The only difference is god doesn't exist, and/or if it does exist it's not done anything at all for 2000 years or 2500 years.

  4. Windows phone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With all this talk of Chrome/Android and Safari I don't see any mention of how Edge is weighing in! ... just kidding. As Alf would say, I kill me.

  5. Progressive Web Applications? by QuietLagoon · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm more in favor of Conservative Web Applications.

    1. Re:Progressive Web Applications? by harperska · · Score: 3, Funny

      What about alt-web applications?

    2. Re:Progressive Web Applications? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great, because HTML3 is way easier to write & faster to load. Not much to lok at though.

    3. Re:Progressive Web Applications? by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

      What about alt-web applications?

      Too fake for my tastes.

    4. Re:Progressive Web Applications? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean alt parameters?

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    5. Re:Progressive Web Applications? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Does it get the job done? That's what I care about.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  6. Not a detriment by dogvomit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    which gives you all sorts of great features that you'd normally associate with native apps, like push notifications

    There you have it. Push notifications are not great features. They are evil, distracting, manipulating, crud that leads to more and more advertising.

    Let's hope Apple at least has the sense to contain this disaster.

    --
    Happy happy oh my friend

    1. Re:Not a detriment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just as for native apps you have to explicitly opt-in and you can revoke the permission at any time

    2. Re:Not a detriment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Does not matter. The default is 'on' and many people, especially younger, do not turn it off.
      Default settings and user indifference is not the same as 'customers really want & enjoy constant notifications'.

      This 'feature' is for the developers' benefit, not the users. This about an actual book. Does it fly off the shelf into your face & demand to be read? WHy not come to it when you want? Why not open ANY app when you want? When you're thinking of it on your own volition & interest?

    3. Re:Not a detriment by captaindomon · · Score: 1

      What I have noticed is that if someone primarily uses their phone for "fun", i.e. a teenager, or an older person without a job, etc. then they want more push notifications. People that are really busy and use it primary for work don't want push notifications. Personally, I think push notifications should only be used for things that require an immediate time sensitive response. I.e. incoming phone call or teleconference, and different forms of instant messaging where people are expecting a real-time back and forth interaction.

      --
      Just because I can hook a shark from a boat, I do no offer to wrestle it in the water.
    4. Re:Not a detriment by nine-times · · Score: 2

      I think that's just one potential problem, as an example of a larger issue: It's not clear that we all want web browsers to enable web apps to be more like native applications.

      I wouldn't say that web developers have earned enough trust that I want them to have more power over how my computer behaves. Aside from all the malware, there are ongoing issues with advertising and pop-ups. I don't want websites to be able to access my location. I don't want websites to be able to decide to store things on my computer. I don't want websites to be able to send me notifications.

      I know this sounds silly to some people, but I've long argued in favor of splitting modern web browsers into two different types of programs:

      1) Web browser: An application that renders HTML documents. Content is more or less static. You can embed video or have some forms to fill out, and maybe there's some limited animation/scripting support, but the basic idea that the browser renders documents and media. It does not provide a lot of interactivity.
      2) Web-App framework: A framework that will render and execute highly interactive web applications.

      Though the line between these two uses is often blurred, they're actually two very different uses of web browsers, that just happen to use a lot of the same languages and technologies. Importantly, they have very different security needs. The web browser needs to be very open, since people will browse to any number of different websites during a given day, and don't need many restrictions on what should be read-only static content. The framework, on the other hand, provides a lot of scripting capabilities with ever-increasing control of the computer you're working on, and therefore should allow the user to control exactly what each app has access to, including being able to place restrictions on which web apps are permitted to run at all.

      Google, of course, isn't thinking about this separation. They're selling an OS that runs their web browser, and nothing else. They're going to want the browser to have deep access into that system so that they can replicate the experience of a native app, an experience which many people find preferable. Also, they don't have much reason to be concerned about the security implications of giving web applications control over the device, since there isn't anything on the device other than web applications.

    5. Re:Not a detriment by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      When you're thinking of it on your own volition & interest?

      See, there's the problem; Individual volition is what marketers, corporations, and governments want to train people to give up and forget. They want people to let others think and make choices for them.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    6. Re:Not a detriment by fermion · · Score: 1
      Right now web sites are too intrusive, even dangerous. Many of the things that are good for desktop, such a drop downs or rollovers that are huge ware of real estate, are not god for mobile.

      I don't know what are the implications of mobile. I do know that google will adopt any technology that allows it to monotize end users because it is an ad agency and that is what ad agencies do. OTOH, Apple charges for services, so the end users matter so things like wasting time and security matter.

      We j ow in the web we will not have options, as we can't even turn off auto play.

      This is clearly another slashvertisement from those who want to pressure apple into aceepting intrusive technology.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    7. Re:Not a detriment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And just to be clear, push notifications are not a win on native apps either. They suck in general. I turn them all off. There was some article here earlier this week or last talking about too many notifications. We don't want notifications. When I need to pee, I use the can. I don't need a reminder to pee, or check email.

    8. Re:Not a detriment by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      It's not clear that we all want web browsers to enable web apps to be more like native applications.

      I think it's clear that plenty of people don't have a desire for this. And plenty of people (or at least me), actively want for this not to happen.

    9. Re:Not a detriment by tepples · · Score: 2

      Personally, I think push notifications should only be used for things that require an immediate time sensitive response. I.e. incoming phone call or teleconference

      Fortunately, the specification lets users set up their notifications as you describe. When a domain asks to push notifications, the user checks whether it's a domain associated with real-time messaging, such as discordapp.com or skype.com, and chooses whether to allow or block notifications based on that.

    10. Re:Not a detriment by tepples · · Score: 1

      It's not clear that we all want web browsers to enable web apps to be more like native applications.

      plenty of people (or at least me), actively want for this not to happen.

      Would you prefer not to have access to most applications at all because they are made for the desktop computing platform other than the one you use daily?

    11. Re:Not a detriment by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      If my choice is limited to just between those two, then yes.

    12. Re:Not a detriment by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Well my point was that they could have a much more limited "browser" and then a more capable "web app framework". So you could have a cross-platform framework for making complex, capable applications that have the capabilities of a native app without compromising the security and simplicity of the browsing experience.

    13. Re:Not a detriment by thejynxed · · Score: 1

      Except from what I've experienced so far, not one single developer from Samsung all the way through Google and the small guys follows that specification when it comes to allowing the end-user to customize this part of push notifications, it's either "all on" or "all off" for their entire application (and sometimes for their entire suite), there is no fine grain tuning.

      --
      @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
  7. Apple is in the right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Google's test bed for developers might be ok to put this to play around with. But the real world USES are very little if any. These things are beyond fucking annoying. I've blocked every single request for a page or site to send me updates. It's not needed or wanted.

    I view this functionality as a gaping security hole and a resource hog. It's not needed. Who the fuck wants this other than the site owner to push more ads?

    1. Re: Apple is in the right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. If I want an app I'll downloads it.
      I don't want my webpages to start acting like apps and doing app things.

    2. Re:Apple is in the right by QuietLagoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ... I've blocked every single request for a page or site to send me updates. It's not needed or wanted....

      It is wanted by someone --- the advertisers whose ads will ride piggy-back on every push notification you see.

    3. Re:Apple is in the right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see an advertiser or site owner getting revenue from ads has decided to join in here. No, this functionality is useless and not needed by any user or visitor to your site.

      Flash is a gaping security hole, so what the fuck is your point? Oh wait, you're the advertiser and you would love everyone to not block flash to continue planting malware, er I mean ads, on people's phones and computers.

    4. Re:Apple is in the right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > But the real world USES are very little if any.

      Your "real world" is very different from mine, friend. In my real world both of my children and most of their friends use them often. My wife uses them, as does most of her FB circle of friends.

      I have them all disabled, and live in your "real world", but that's not where most of my non-techy family & friends live.

    5. Re:Apple is in the right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed.

      "PWAs enable you to use JavaScript to create a "Service Worker", which gives you all sorts of great features that you'd normally associate with native apps, like push notifications, offline support, and app loading screens"

      1. Offline support seems to work fine already in various applications (e.g., even Microsoft's Outlook Web Access can run offline). It merely strongly hints at adding a favourite/bookmark so you can access the site while offline. Fair enough, really.

      2. Push notifications? That... does not sound like a feature. And even if it was, I'm sure it could be done in another way outside of needing JavaScript. Reminds me Active Channels that Microsoft developed a while ago.[1]. But something more ... "JavaScript can ask the web browser to occasionally pull down a specially formatted JSON/XML/INI file with this authentication key and display notifications contained therein" is more than sufficient without running JS in the background.

      3. App loading screens? SERIOUSLY? That's called "the blimming animated GIF on a HTML page before the javascript framework du jour takes over and builds the whole DOM again. Seriously. Someone is arguing for THAT.

      What the heck, is this just another attempt by Google (note; it's only Google that push this, Microsoft don't especially seem to care about it) as their chrome app store thingie never really got going?

      This is so Google-specific, I would suggest this person is a Google atroturf attempt.

      [1]: before you panic, Microsoft themselves call this obsolete as of Internet Explorer 7; so you have to be using IE6 on Windows XP or earlier to see this stuff.

    6. Re:Apple is in the right by tepples · · Score: 1

      Offline support seems to work fine already in various applications (e.g., even Microsoft's Outlook Web Access can run offline).

      Is this using Service Worker? Or is it using Service Worker's deprecated predecessor, Application Cache?

      Push notifications? That... does not sound like a feature.

      How else is a web-based messaging application supposed to notify Bob that Alice, another user of the same application, has sent a message to Bob, despite Bob's web browser currently being pointed at another website or web application?

  8. Who cares by bitbiter · · Score: 0

    Who cares it's Apple. It's only 20% or so of the market. It's time for them to get on board with something, instead of saying my way or the highway.

    --
    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben
    1. Re:Who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple users, like me, care. I absolutely do not want this shit, and I applaud Apple for keeping this Google ad-trash off my phone.

    2. Re:Who cares by iotaborg · · Score: 1

      Just like Flash!

    3. Re:Who cares by Presence+Eternal · · Score: 1

      Google is FAR worse when it comes to "My way or the highway" because the handset maker, carrier, and app developers ALL get to say that to the end user far more frequently. Apple has kept forced carrier bloatware off their phones and ensured reliable updates without having to be vetted by said carriers. They also have a better and earlier track record for users who want to use an app without forced permissions disclosing their exact location, social security number, and dental records.

    4. Re:Who cares by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Flash died because Flash died. Trying to imply Apple was a major factor is an error.

    5. Re:Who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flash started to die when Apple refused to allow it on mobile safari. So Apple WAS a major factor.

    6. Re:Who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually no. Flash went on and so did the rest of the world.

    7. Re:Who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, and Apple also doesn't support using more than 50 specific programs. So what?

    8. Re:Who cares by nnet · · Score: 1

      20% of what market? did you forget the laptop/desktop market that apple also sells product in?

    9. Re:Who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want a cheap phone, it is usually characterized with phone company bloatware, that's how it is. Google didn't make manufacturers do that, consumers did by wanting their previous phones to be so inexpensive. Cheap comes with a pricetag.

      Go to Motorola, you can buy a non-bloatware phone off-contract quite easily. Likely from other vendors too, you just need to know where to look.

    10. Re:Who cares by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Flash died because it is a security hole. Not a single month went by without there being at the very least 20 critical patches for Flash, usually connected with remote code execution. Every CISO on this planet who didn't just hold that title because "we needed some idiot with that title so we hired this bum" pretty much outlawed anything remotely bordering on Flash in their company.

      Which means that any "professional" web presence had to be done without Flash, because nobody in a commercial setting could watch it. And a technology can only get so far with cheap time-waster games if it's not backed by Steam...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  9. *shrug* by nightfire-unique · · Score: 2

    If it's important to you .. buy an Android device?

    --
    A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
    1. Re:*shrug* by tepples · · Score: 1

      How many people are willing to buy and carry two phones and pay two phone bills just to run the odd native application that isn't yet ported to iOS or web application that relies on features that Apple has refused to add to Safari?

    2. Re:*shrug* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe do the smart thing and dump apple.

  10. And who wants this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why the fuck would I want a website to have push notifications? Or worker threads on my machine? Or use this shit to have even more ads? Or let it access more of my information?

    Sorry, but the web is insecure in large part because every asshole web developer thinks the default should be for us to enable everything so their crappy site can work -- which makes us vulnerable to malicious ads, viruses, and all sorts of shit.

    I will never trust a fucking web application the way I would a native application, because we have seen time and time again, the web isn't something you can trust.

    Boo goddamned fucking hoo ... your new web technology may not be something we want anyway.

    I let javascript run on a whitelist basis only. I'm sure as hell not letting arbitrary websites have even more access to my machine.

    Fuck you, fuck off.

    1. Re:And who wants this? by supremebob · · Score: 1

      You're right, of course. I basically disable push notifications for almost every application I use, web or mobile. All of the noise that those messages generate are distracting, and slow down my ability to get to important alerts like an e-mail from my boss or a text message from my wife.

    2. Re:And who wants this? by doconnor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      My website does bus arrival predictions, so it would be useful to have notifications so I could tell the user when their bus is about to arrive.

      I block a lot of my apps from doing notifications, but there are still lots of situations where notifications are useful.

    3. Re: And who wants this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you trust native applications?

      How many bugs, how many developers request extra information just for their own marketing purposes?

      Trusting anything is foolish if you can't see what's going on

    4. Re:And who wants this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me guess: you have a number of old machines in your basement/bedroom you call your "boxen" that you salvaged out of a dumpster, run them at a cost of a $600 a month power bill to handle 12 users a month on your shitty blog with two updates, the last being "how's the new layout", and email server that only receives spam and probably forwards to gmail. (With one machine dedicated to testing new kernel builds lest something go down in the 'cluster'). They've also got names of star trek/LotR/Harry Potter characters.

      How'd I do?

    5. Re:And who wants this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, and then every asshole sales and marketing team in the world will come up with an endless stream of "check out this new offer", "we've just added a story", or "tell your friends about us on Facebook".

      This is technology for which every "hey, if only I could do this" there will be dozens of examples of it being abused.

      I sure as fuck do not wish to have a website have push notifications. Precisely because of the assholes who will abuse it. And the web has enough intrusive shit on it.

      Until we can make stuff like this which is secure, private, user-controllable, and not an all-or-nothing thing ... this kind of thing is garbage.

      For the same reason I don't blanket allow javascript, or ever allow Flash, you simply can't follow the idiotic model we've had to date -- turn on everything in case a site needs it, but open yourself to issues as the low-lifes abuse it.

      The overwhelming majority of javascript is ads and analytics and other crap. Enabling even *more* javascript is an idiotic idea.

      So, boo hoo, your website can't do push notifications. We're all fucking heartbroken.

    6. Re:And who wants this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, and then every asshole sales and marketing team in the world will come up with an endless stream of "check out this new offer", "we've just added a story", or "tell your friends about us on Facebook".

      This is technology for which every "hey, if only I could do this" there will be dozens of examples of it being abused.

      Got it, so software should only be written in a language that can't be be abused. What language is that?

    7. Re:And who wants this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reminds me of how nice Usenet used to be before all the newly minted lusers "monitized" it into oblivion.

    8. Re:And who wants this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bingo!

    9. Re:And who wants this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Says the guy who apparently doesn't know what a service worker is or does... Service workers are used to get around the browser's limitation of only allowing 4 files to be downloaded at a time, and allows us to pre-cache assets that we know will be used by the user before they are requested. Also, using a service worker cache is magnitudes faster than the browser's cache because it doesn't have to do a HEAD request to find out if the file has changed or not. If you don't want the benefits of it, that's fine, you can disable javascript... but why should you prevent us from giving better user experiences to other users just because you don't understand how web technologies work?

    10. Re:And who wants this? by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      It's a cost/benefit thing. There are certain thing for which push notifications can have some value. But I have yet to see that value exceed the cost of push notifications.

    11. Re:And who wants this? by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      I will never trust a fucking web application the way I would a native application, because we have seen time and time again, the web isn't something you can trust.

      While there are plenty of native application developers who can't be trusted, I think you're right. The web seems to have a MUCH larger number of them. Like you, I have a much lower trust of anything web (or cloud) based by default.

      Experience has taught me that this is entirely justified.

    12. Re:And who wants this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Part of the problem with web stuff is they embed shit from a dozen other sites you have no relationship with, and who want to run scripts on your machine.

      Between ad vendors who don't know their advertisers are embedding malware, asshole salesmen who want to be as intrusive as possible, and the trend to want to monetize everything ... I find the average website has hooks to 3rd party's I have no interest in dealing with, and who are really just there to track me and try to profile me so the can sell ads. And I'm sorry, but I've not agreed to that, explicitly or implicitly.

      Me, I block the shit out of javascript and cookies, and only enable this stuff through explicit whitelisting.

      All these ad companies who think I agreed to let them track me? Yeah, no.

      Opening up your computer to run any javascript on any page you encounter? That is idiotic and dangerous.

      The web is so much better when you block all of this shit in the first place.

    13. Re:And who wants this? by tepples · · Score: 1

      Why the fuck would I want a website to have push notifications?

      In order to know that one of your contacts who uses the same website wishes to initiate a conversation with you.

      Or worker threads on my machine?

      In order not to have interruptions in your machine's Internet connection cause interruptions in your work flow.

      I will never trust a fucking web application the way I would a native application

      At least you can theoretically deminify the JavaScript and audit it. It's a bit harder to do this with a native application compiled to x86, x86-64, or ARM machine code, as C++ compilation mangles the program's structure more than JavaScript minification does.

    14. Re:And who wants this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In order to know that one of your contacts who uses the same website wishes to initiate a conversation with you.

      Well, since I'm not a fucking teenage girl and I don't engage in real-time conversations on the web, that's a terrible example. A whole bunch of fucking websites with chatboxes beeping at me, why the hell would I want that?

      In order not to have interruptions in your machine's Internet connection cause interruptions in your work flow.

      See, I do real work ... not shit in a webapp.

      At least you can theoretically deminify the JavaScript and audit it.

      Ahh ... the piece do resistance ... audit the code yourself.

      Or, I can use the internet to find information, so I can do my real job (which is far more complex than some dumb-ass web app), and I can bypass the whole issue by not giving a fuck, disabling javascript, and blocking web sites which demand it.

      People seem to have this idiotic belief that the internet is indispensable, and every new shiny widget and add technology is super awesome. And social media is a complete and utter waste of fucking time.

      I'd say about 99% of all apps I've ever installed prove pointless within the first 20 minutes and subsequently deleted. The number of websites I'm willing to whitelist to run javascript, set cookies, or have a login to ... well, that's fewer than about 15 sites to varying degrees, with the number of places I have logins for being about 5 in total.

      All this stuff was cool and new in the 90s, now it's just repackaging of things I grew bored with 20+ years ago, only with more ads and analytics.

      No thanks.

    15. Re:And who wants this? by tepples · · Score: 1

      A whole bunch of fucking websites with chatboxes beeping at me, why the hell would I want that?

      I'm a contract programmer. One client prefers to discuss requirements using Skype, another using Discord, etc. I want to know when my client has answered my question about a particular point of the requirements.

    16. Re:And who wants this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is wrong with email or using an sms gateway?
      If the feature was useful enough then accept donations to offset any costs.

    17. Re:And who wants this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Create RSS feeds

    18. Re:And who wants this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree that this is likely to be misused, but there are legitimate use cases. Off the top of my head, from my own experience:

      Point-of-sale system that runs on many devices. Needs to run be able to run offline. You still want to service your customers, even if the internet connection is down.

      Monitoring and management of things like logistics facilities (robots, conveyors and what not).

      Both of the above could of course be made in some native binaries, but at a higher cost.

      More complicated technologies almost always leads to both legitimate uses, as well as misguieded uses, user confusion, etc. Not sure if that could be avoided.

    19. Re:And who wants this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the fuck would I want a website to have push notifications?

      Because you are a trader and want notification of market news matching your custom filter.
      Because you are an electricity buyer for a large business and want to be notified at once when a price drops below a threshold so you can place an order.
      Because you are a logistics despatcher and want to know at once when a vehicle in your fleet has an issue that will delay delivery
      Because a million bits of software actually work on a real or near time basis.

    20. Re:And who wants this? by houghi · · Score: 1

      As a European I take public transport. I do not need the bus info to be send to me via a push notification. You do not know if I actually want to take that bus or train or tram at that moment.

      I have seen it in action at the different companies over Europe. The information is way too late. When it is known that there is a delay, I often am already at the station. If I want to know, I press the refresh button and 9 out of 10 times, the delay is not known.

      Now if there are people who want to have these push-notifications, there are other an better ways to do it. Send me a free SMS, Like Iberia does to know what gate I have to be.

      Again: there is no reason that a website has it. No matter how much easier it would be for you.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    21. Re:And who wants this? by doconnor · · Score: 1

      In North America a lot of people live within 2 or 3 minute walk from their bus stop, instead of a 10 or 15 minute walk from the train station, so up to the minute information on arrivals is useful to know when you can leave for the bus. My notification would only appear for the arrival of the next bus after you request it.

      SMS messages might be a good solution, but some people might not be comfortable sharing their phone number. After all privacy violations are what many people here are concerned about.

      Of course, my website can support more then one notification method.

    22. Re:And who wants this? by chihowa · · Score: 1

      A whole bunch of fucking websites with chatboxes beeping at me, why the hell would I want that?

      I'm a contract programmer. One client prefers to discuss requirements using Skype, another using Discord, etc. I want to know when my client has answered my question about a particular point of the requirements.

      Then get a more reliable internet connection or convince them to use deeply unhip, but curiously reliable, technology like telephone and email.

      No... I'm sure the correct solution to your very specific and not at all universal problem is to set up a framework for malicious advertisers to spam everybody in the world in a new way.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    23. Re:And who wants this? by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Your "legitimate use cases" are business critical functions that you're running as fucking web apps hosted by third parties and your solution is to set up a framework for malicious advertisers to spam everybody in the world in a new way?

      If an internet connection is critical for the functioning of your business, get a decent SLA or a redundant connection. Don't offload your poor business decisions onto the rest of us.

      The idea of your business's robots and conveyors being monitored and managed by some goofy web app running "in the cloud" is terrifying.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    24. Re:And who wants this? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      This is technology for which every "hey, if only I could do this" there will be dozens of examples of it being abused.

      Got it, so software should only be written in a language that can't be be abused. What language is that?

      Well, I know that maybe it didn't -really- end up fulfilling this promise for a variety of reasons, but this was one of the primary original selling points for Java.

    25. Re:And who wants this? by tepples · · Score: 1

      If a "malicious advertiser" were to spam through a particular domain, the user could block notifications from that domain and (optionally) report the advertiser to the domain's webmaster.

  11. PWA is a "Crock of Shit" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You can tell that the entire concept is bullshit just on how they are marketing it ... "Progressive Web App" -- who are you trying to fool? HTML5 was progressive, they didn't need to call it "PHTML" to sell us on it because it proved its own merrit.

    If you're trying to do something complicated that requires native binaries, but you're using Javascript instead, you're doing it wrong. Period.

    (And regular old javascript can run offline already ... PWA is utter nonsense.)

    1. Re:PWA is a "Crock of Shit" by smartr · · Score: 1

      As far as I can tell, they a note from Google's reasonably good advice on building Progressive Web Apps, and somehow feel their take on service workers and push notifications. Here's the browser support, and status of the "draft" w3c for the functionality: https://developer.mozilla.org/... ... But I guess the complaint is that startups can't get this functionality, with just a webpage: * Create an app loading screen * Use push notifications * Add offline support * Create an initial app UI to load instantly * Prompt installation to the home screen through browser-guided dialog ... So that sounds pretty cool that android will let me completely bypass their store to get those features and even distribute say, an enterprise "app" without needing Google Play or any other marketplace.

    2. Re:PWA is a "Crock of Shit" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "Progressive" part means, if you can't (like iOS) or choose not to (up to the user) run all the extra stuff (Push, Offline capability, etc), the rest of the site still works

    3. Re:PWA is a "Crock of Shit" by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      So that sounds pretty cool that android will let me completely bypass their store to get those features and even distribute say, an enterprise "app" without needing Google Play or any other marketplace.

      You have that right now. Android allows you to install apps without a marketplace being involved in any way.

    4. Re:PWA is a "Crock of Shit" by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      So "progressive" is just a fancy way of saying "not broken" then?

    5. Re:PWA is a "Crock of Shit" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While that is true, bypassing the PlayStore for apps has two major downsides:

      - Your users need to switch on that installing apps from unknown sources is OK
      - Your users will need to download each update by themselves, there is no automatic procedure à la PlayStore (or PWA/Website where all updates come to everyone at once).

      Regards from the AC from the other post :-)

    6. Re:PWA is a "Crock of Shit" by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      I actually think of both of those as upsides, not down. Perhaps not for the average user, but personally I like being able to switch side-loading on and off (it helps to prevent accidents), and I don't like automatic updates.

    7. Re:PWA is a "Crock of Shit" by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      So much of the web IS broken if you run something like, say, NoScript, that having something that doesn't break is a novelty now.

  12. Who would not want this? by clovis · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is this a way to bring back the features of IE6 and ActiveX controls, only now they can install themselves more easily?
    Who would not want this?

    1. Re:Who would not want this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      People who are sick of Google's detrimental self-aggrandization would not want this.

      HTML5 + CSS + Javascript is already Turing complete. What else does it need? Push notifications??? Fuck off, please.

      It is possible to do "push notifications" with regular javascript ... it's just that Google wants greater market control so they're blessing us with the more convoluted and locked-in way to do it, over simpler alternative.

      PWA is a sham, and I am 100% likely to close the browser if I see a PWA page loading.

    2. Re:Who would not want this? by tepples · · Score: 1

      If you're trying to do something complicated that requires native binaries, but you're using Javascript instead, you're doing it wrong. Period.

      The difference between "native binaries" and a web application is that "native binaries" are specific to one brand of operating system, and web applications theoretically are not. So should these "native binaries" that you recommend be made for Microsoft Windows first, for GNU/Linux first, or for macOS first?

    3. Re:Who would not want this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In general, go with the platform with the largest market share first. In particular cases you might want to go for a non-dominant platform first if you believe your potential userbase might be larger for whatever reason. It's not that hard.

    4. Re:Who would not want this? by tepples · · Score: 1

      In general, go with the platform with the largest market share first.

      In this case, "the platform with the largest market share" is HTML5.

  13. No thanks. Stop flogging a dead horse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Palm pre
    Mozilla Phone
    etc

    Should be an indicator of what people are trying to do with this technology. And that no-one wants it (because it ends up being shit)

    So, frankly, I hope these kinds of technologies (and their ultimate destinations to your phones) die in a fire.

  14. PWM by DigiShaman · · Score: 3, Funny

    Progressive Web Malware

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
    1. Re:PWM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm ... PWA -> PWM -> pwned.

      Sounds about right.

  15. detriment to what? by iggymanz · · Score: 2

    Translation: Their way of making money is a detriment to the way you make your living, or wish you could make a living? There are many ways to do each of the things you list without doing PWAs; no one has to share your infatuation with PWA

  16. Buzzword Bingo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Progressive Web Applications (PWAs) are one of the most exciting and innovative things happening in web development right now. PWAs enable you to use JavaScript

    BINGO!

    1. Re:Buzzword Bingo by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Lacks synergy, strategy and vision.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  17. And lose 30%? by ArhcAngel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Apple charges a 30% fee for apps to do business on their app store. This would allow web sites to dilute the need for those apps. Apple isn't about to give away that kind of control.

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    1. Re:And lose 30%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That and the battery considerations. Anything in the background is a potential battery hog and a pain to manage. Users have to be aware of it's existence and impact. I don't think theres an Apple-ish way to support them and have a good user experience, even ignoring the 30% cut of revenue.

    2. Re:And lose 30%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What no? this is obviously evil Google and/or JavaScript. It's not like in a world where PWA didn't exist websites would just build an app which then has its own "Push" functionality

    3. Re:And lose 30%? by lactose99 · · Score: 1

      Chrome on mobile already fixed that by throttling any tab not in the user's foreground.

      --
      Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
    4. Re:And lose 30%? by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      Does that apply to Chrome on iOS? Because it is just a Chrome wrapper on top of WebKit. One of Apple's other rules prevents Google from using Blink.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
  18. Nice by BlueStrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A slashvertisement for push-marketing software that's also a marketing attack piece aimed at an industry holdout.

    Who voted for this dreck while in the firehose, or did it simply get "inserted"?

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    1. Re:Nice by Tailhook · · Score: 1

      Who

      Same shit birds that saluted when this crap appeared earlier; "With the current administration's attitude toward transparency and catering only to the largest corporate donors herp derp."

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    2. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      awesome! now we know how to flush Trump supporters into the open! "herp derp."

  19. Discussions are taking place by martinX · · Score: 2

    Apple is having discussions. You're not invited.

    --
    When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
    1. Re:Discussions are taking place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Progressives aren't used to that. It's usually them who have uni-directional "discussions".

  20. Conservative web applications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm more in favor of Conservative Web Applications.

    If by "conservative" you mean limited in scope, efficient in their use of resources, and cautious in their assumptions - security and otherwise - then I'm right there with you.

  21. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fucking web wankers

  22. The real detriment is: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The real detriment is the continued use of HTML (a display page layout language) and Javascript (a scripting language meant to add limited behavioral capability to said layout) for the development of applications that need high quality, good security, high maintainability, etc.

    Flush those things down the drain (except for their intended purpose!) and start building something reasonable for building webapps.

    Flash/Silverlight were crap implementations that failed, but at least they had the right idea of marrying a well thought out declarative UI language with a decent object/type modeled language (hence why those ideas carry over into mobile development).

    Instead of just building an ecosystem with that in mind, we have to make due to hacks like Angular/Ember/etc. which are the best of breed attempts to emulate that, but still are horrendous and often difficult to work with and maintain hack jobs.

  23. Progressive Web Applications aren't that Great by randomErr · · Score: 2

    If you boil a PWS down it's just a website/webpage that has a manifest and icon in its root folder. Just about everything else is preexisting technology. The only real advantage is that you wrap a browser window around the site and make it work more like a desktop app... like what Chrome Apps use to be. Ever wonder why Google / Alphabet abandoned that technology?

    --
    You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
    1. Re:Progressive Web Applications aren't that Great by erapert · · Score: 1

      The only real advantage is that you wrap a browser window around the site and make it work more like a desktop app... like what Chrome Apps use to be.

      That's basically what Electron is, isn't it?

      Ever wonder why Google / Alphabet abandoned that technology?

      I'm actually curious about this, yes. Could you please give me your take on it?

    2. Re:Progressive Web Applications aren't that Great by randomErr · · Score: 1
      Of course, here are my thoughts:

      That's basically what Electron is, isn't it?

      No Electron and it's parent project Node Webkit (aka NW.JS) are complete stacks for building desktop applications with a NodeJS engine integrated in. Chrome Apps had a much more restrictive sandbox and ask for permission to do things.

      I'm actually curious about this, yes. Could you please give me your take on it?

      Sure my take comes down two main reasons for no continuing support for Chrome Apps:

      1. Maintaining Chrome App's sandbox was getting harder after the switch over to the Blink engine.
      2. Android for Chrome - I believe Google though this project was going to replace the Chrome App engine. But the project seems to have stalled.

      So now Google seems to be pushing PWA which really isn't using anything new other then a manifest wrapper and worker processes. Worker process have been around for a while, just not widely used because of teh complity and client load.

      I could turn static website or WordPress blog into a PWA in a matter of minutes. But what advantage do I really get?

      BTW: what are this big Progressive Web Applications out there now? You would think Google or Microsoft would have created there own version or GMAIL or Outlook.com for

      --
      You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
    3. Re:Progressive Web Applications aren't that Great by acroyear · · Score: 1

      The problem with Electron, and PhoneGap/Cordova, is adding all that weight. Yeah, I can package my app in those two services and get it to work and be deployed in web stores and app stores...but then I'm bundling in it a bunch of stuff that the browser already has done for me.

      The problem with Chrome apps is that we had all these nice HTML5 standard features (local storage, history which is html-*3*) and threw them away and made you use proprietary APIs. That made for UNportable code (the hackery I had to do to get my app to work as a Chrome app AND a Fire TV/Stick html5 app...painful). Had Chrome apps just used the html standards, they probably would not have felt the pinch of developers going "I'm not doing this" in the first place, and the webstore as a place to 'purchase' webapps, as a means to having them vetted and validated by an independent entity and a way to search for a web app as a service, would still be alive today.

      --
      "But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
      -- Joe
  24. That's BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Progressive Web Apps are crap. Why any bothers with shitty web app on mobile is beyond me. Write native apps if you're serious, otherwise don't bother polluting the world with more crappy apps.

  25. Re:make it shorter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And technology in general.

  26. Progressive Web Malware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sorry, what. Why would more javascript be a good thing? There's a reason why noscript type addons are the second most used kind, right after adblockers. You want to force feed users even more of that, and for what, push notifications and loading screens?

    This sounds like something cooked up by advertisers, for advertisers.

    1. Re: Progressive Web Malware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Advertisers and bean counters are in charge for the time being. They get to drive business, hopefully not off a cliff.

  27. More Internet CANCER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This shit sounds like more CANCER that is ruining the Internet. More Javascript? More 'push notifications'? Etc? LOL, no. We need LESS of this shit. The Web is full of bloated pages that would slow down a supercomputer.

  28. JavaScript is cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How old were you when you realized that Java and JavaScript are bad languages?

    1. Re: JavaScript is cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      17. Which is when it came out, back in the 90's. Yuck.

    2. Re: JavaScript is cancer by DarkRookie · · Score: 1

      14 when I had a CompSci and HTML class in HS

      --
      The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
    3. Re:JavaScript is cancer by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      How old were you when you realized that Java and JavaScript are bad languages?

      Java and Javascript are nothing alike. Java actually had a good name when it was released, so Netscape gave their scripting language the name Javascript for purely marketing reasons.

  29. "From a blog post" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, that makes it authoritative.
    Almost as informed as 4:00AM POTBELLY tweet.
    Just WTF makes this so damn great.
    We're not looking for a great "user experience".
    Just a little meaningful content for a change.

  30. Endo of AppStore, end of Google Play by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make In-App purchases API for web sites and we need no AppStore or Google Play.

  31. Don't need it by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 4, Insightful
    like push notifications, offline support, and app loading screens

    Push notifications are evil. I have one iphone app that I turned them on for, then turned them off, and they still come through any way from time to time. Now I'm starting to see more and more websites that want to send them. I don't need offline support. Who does? And what are "app loading screens" and why do I supposedly need them? All this post has done is make me very grateful to Apple.

  32. Safari is the new IE6. RTFM it's not just ads by michaelcole · · Score: 1

    Safari is consistently incompatible browser technologies like WebRTC and PWAs. This isn't for ads, it's for offline apps. It's for apps that don't need to be installed through the iTunes store.

    It's fine if Apple has $80trillion dollars in an overseas bank and doesn't want to make a decent browser, but let's not fanbois fantasy this is about push notifications. It's about centralized web, and that is good for Apple.

    PWAs are about building interesting offline web applications that don't have to go through someone's "store".

  33. Lots of people use Safari. More than use Firefox. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Despite being a relatively minor product from Apple, and one that these days only really runs on macOS or iOS, it turns out that a lot of people use Safari.

    According to recent browser stats, iOS Safari has about 10% of the browser market.

    This is well above Firefox for Android's 0.03% (yes, that's right, it's way less than even just 1%!) share of the market.

    macOS Safari has about 2% to 3% of the market.

    To put that into perspective, macOS Safari has more users than Edge does (which has about 1.5% of the market).

    Even Firefox, which also runs on macOS, in addition to many other platforms that Safari doesn't currently support (like Windows, Linux, *BSDs, Solaris, and so on), only has about 4% to 5% of the market.

    While Chrome is clearly the dominant browser, it's safe to say that Safari is now the second-most used browser across all platforms.

    Firefox has made itself irrelevant, by totally dropping the ball on mobile and by driving away so many of the users of desktop Firefox.

    Most web designers today test in Chrome, Safari and IE/Edge. More and more of them are ignoring Firefox just because its share of the market has fallen so much. Firefox has essentially become a "dead" browser in the eyes of many web developers and web users.

  34. wut? by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

    You lost me at "push notifications". "App loading screens" sounds like "Ads I don't want".

    Pass.

  35. And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this thing is "just JavaScript" then why the need for anyone's support? Note also that Google has a history of supporting then dropping stuff. So, because Google (currently) supports it means very very little.

  36. Apple Used To Innovate by hduff · · Score: 1

    They used to innovate, but as they have grown larger, they are becoming less likely to innovate (think large cellphone screens). they prefer their users in a walled garden and not free to make too many choices. For many people, that's just fine.

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
    1. Re: Apple Used To Innovate by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      In this case two of the three "features" of progressive web apps are what most people do not want. How is it innovative to offer them if people don't want them?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    2. Re: Apple Used To Innovate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2 out of 3 features are what YOU do not want.

      Pokemon Go users with maps implement notifications to indicate if a desired creature is available, and the money saved by not paying any developer agreements can be used for other purposes. (For example)

      What of banks that notify you of suspicious transactions without installing a 100 mb app on your phone?

    3. Re: Apple Used To Innovate by nnet · · Score: 1

      What of banks that notify you of suspicious transactions without installing a 100 mb app on your phone?

      You mean email or SMS notifications they send? Maybe you need to rethink whom you bank with.

    4. Re: Apple Used To Innovate by jittles · · Score: 1

      Pokemon Go users with maps implement notifications to indicate if a desired creature is available

      Then I recommend that both of you install Chrome and use that. Problem solved

      What of banks that notify you of suspicious transactions without installing a 100 mb app on your phone?

      I might be a bit of a Luddite, but my bank uses two different types of technology for that. The first is a phone call, and the second is an SMS notification. Both work in those rare instances when I don't have data. SMS works when I don't even have enough signal to have a phone conversation. Furthermore, I trust my banking institution a lot more than I trust some random website on the internet. If I did not trust my bank, or their app, I would not have my money deposited with them.

    5. Re: Apple Used To Innovate by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Those are apps not web apps. Do you understand the difference?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  37. JavaScript hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >PWAs enable you to use JavaScript to create...

    Oh how generous, these apps 'enable' developers to use JS. Maybe PWA did not get the eternal memo: JavaScript is a virus allowing, tracking beacon allowing, page mis-formatting, iFrame allowing, crap system. Apple is right to ignore the 'features' this gem enables us to use.

    _

  38. Re:Safari is the new IE6. RTFM it's not just ads by mrbester · · Score: 1

    Plus you don't need three different codebases written in three different languages by three different teams thus ensuring a lack of feature parity in all of them. Or have to publish them in three different places in three different ways with three different release windows.

    --
    "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
  39. Real Applications by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...which gives you all sorts of great features that you'd normally associate with native apps, like push notifications, offline support, and app loading screens -- but on the web! Awesome.

    Here we go again. Web devs trying to pretend they're making native apps. Folks, there are so many reasons why you would not want that. Native and web are two separate disciplines with two very different roles. You're screwdrivers not hammers. Quite trying to turn nails.

    --
    Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    1. Re:Real Applications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would log in to respond, but I'd have to Install the Slashdot Posting App for iOS/Android/Windows/macOS. They don't make one for Linux because it has too small a marketshare

    2. Re:Real Applications by tepples · · Score: 1

      You're screwdrivers not hammers. Quite trying to turn nails.

      A Phillips screwdriver cannot turn a Torx screw nor vice versa. Should people carry both in case they need to turn a given kind of screw? Should people carry both a Windows laptop and a MacBook to run both Windows apps and macOS apps? Should people carry both an Android phone and an iPhone to run both apps on Google Play Store and apps on the App Store?

    3. Re:Real Applications by Lord+Flipper · · Score: 1

      Should people carry both a Windows laptop and a MacBook to run both Windows apps and macOS apps?

      Jeeze, that's been answered since a long time ago. I boot Win7ult on my MacBook Pro in about ten seconds, drag and drop, clipboard-sharing, common VPN... Seriously, we hardly need 2 of anything in the modern world..

    4. Re:Real Applications by tepples · · Score: 1

      As I understand it: The MacBook and the MacBook Pro can run all desktop applications because Windows and GNU/Linux can be installed in virtual machines. Other brands of laptop cannot run many well-known desktop applications because they are exclusive to macOS, which in turn is exclusive to Mac hardware. Without access to key applications, how do laptop makers other than Apple even continue to sell laptops?

    5. Re:Real Applications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I understand it: The MacBook and the MacBook Pro can run all desktop applications because Windows and GNU/Linux can be installed in virtual machines.

      They can also run said operating systems natively, which is pretty handy too.

      Without access to key applications, how do laptop makers other than Apple even continue to sell laptops?

      They seem to be doing just fine with Windows, likely due to its market dominance.

  40. Paradigm shift? by blindseer · · Score: 2

    In college as an intern I remember talking to the experienced engineers about this interesting video I saw about a guy talking about the concept of a "paradigm shift". The response was something like, "Oh, you mean that guy that couldn't sell his funny looking bicycle seat?" Apparently this guy had already developed a reputation.

    The video was about a funny looking bicycle seat, and it was interesting from an engineering perspective. What was wrong though was the product he was trying to sell was crap. I remembered the video and as someone that then rode a bicycle regularly I'd see people start to use bicycle seats with features he mentioned in his video, but the idea he was trying to sell was not a great idea.

    Progressive web apps sounds like just another funny looking bicycle seat. There's some good ideas there but the product they want to sell as a "paradigm shift" is crap. The article even spells out the problems, like needing a constant internet connection to work. Data still costs money even if it's real cheap, and people might not be fond of constantly getting charged for using "too much" data on their cell plan.

    Progressive web apps are stupid. Apple is smart to be reluctant to support them. Maybe they have some good ideas here that will find their way into future products and services but this just sounds stupid.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  41. Really? Innovative AND exciting!?!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Progressive Web Applications (PWAs) are one of the most exciting and innovative things happening in web development right now."

    There is so little that is ever truly new.

  42. Apple's Right to be Cautious by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This sounds to me like the latest exploit-vector.

    I DO NOT WANT "worker processes" being shoved onto my computer, regardless of Sandboxing.

    Just wait. There WILL be an exploit or hundred that use this.

    And I will sit back and laugh.

    1. Re:Apple's Right to be Cautious by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      It doesn't need an exploit to be bad. The basic concept of allowing websites to use your resources while you're not actually viewing the website is troublesome. Seems sure to result in memory leaks and degraded performance which will be very hard for most people to track down the source of.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    2. Re:Apple's Right to be Cautious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not the exploits you need to worry about, it's the battery consumption and memory/storage issues.

      By the time every website you visit wants to install some worker thread for its ad server and some "fast load" crapware, your phone will start to resemble a Windows 95 machine after you let your parents use it for a few months.

    3. Re:Apple's Right to be Cautious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can a service worker run while there are no clients (web page views) attached to it? Not sure, but I don't think so.

    4. Re:Apple's Right to be Cautious by thejynxed · · Score: 1

      Seems to me to be a great way to use the device's resources to do all kinds of stuff for you/your company without paying the owner of the device for doing so and without informing them you're doing it.

      --
      @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
  43. Wha wha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Live by the bleeding edge, die by the bleeding edge.

  44. eh fuck javascript by Hugh+Jorgen · · Score: 0

    enough already

  45. Progressive??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are these apps called progressive because they want to take over your life? It is never about what the people actually want, it is what a few elites think they should be able to push on all the rest of us. It doesn't matter if it is a bunch of rules and regulations from some big government bureaucrat or a greedy corporation who wants to treat you like their personal slave. And people wonder why the word "progressive" turns so many off these days.

  46. Google's just angry by joh · · Score: 1

    that there STILL is a web that doesn't care for Google.

    I mean, take a web server, and a database and a couple billion of browers and you have something. Add Google and you have what? More ads! What if you don't need them? THIS is the thought that Google can't stand.

  47. Push notifications... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, we so need more of that. :/

  48. Great features... by JackAxe · · Score: 1

    Like BLOAT! ...Even SLOWER webpages that further frustrate the end user's experience... I disabled JavaScript last year on my phone/tablets and have been whitelisting sites because it's gotten so bad. It's bothersome that desktop sites are still a faster and in general a better experience than these bloated web-aps from HELL!

  49. Re:Safari is the new IE6. RTFM it's not just ads by nnet · · Score: 1

    a web application for offline use. so...an app. what part of that needs to be web if its offline? name ONE interesting offline "web app". and it can't obviously notify because its offline.

  50. Oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But guys, don't you understand? Longer loading screens means an opportunity to have you view ads while you are waiting for the content to load!
    It's progressive as progressive can be!

  51. Read blog post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wish I hadn't.

    Progressive Web Applications (PWAs) are one of the most exciting and innovative things happening in web development right now. PWAâ(TM)s enable you to use JavaScript to create a âoeService Workerâ, which gives you all sorts of great features that youâ(TM)d normally associate with native apps, like push notifications, offline support, and app loading screensâSâ"âSbut on the web! Awesome.

    What's awesome about any of this? Web browsers are not designed, intended or suitable for desktop application development.

    It is increasingly painful to use and navigate websites these days. They are painfully slow, have such low information content they are maddeningly frustrating to use. Infinitely scrolling reams of content with no organization or navigational aids. Scroll down yet another page of oversized fonts and see what random half bit of information is displayed next.

    Shit is often broken.. simple click here buttons do nothing when pressed...having to switch to a different browser to work around. For some reason I regularly find myself maximizing browser windows designed to be "responsive" and displayed first and foremost for small mobile devices just to see anything useful on a large desktop display and or keep myself from going insane.

    Iâ(TM)ve been waiting for them to come around on their stance behind PWAâ(TM)s, but so far, it just hasnâ(TM)t happened. Since life is short, Iâ(TM)ve been learning React Native in the mean time. More on this later.

    More technology designed to turn document readers into execution environments for software... so exciting...

    Why Native Apps are ⦠Doomed?!

    Because someone said so in a blog? Is the term "web developer" intended to be a pejorative term?

    Service workers are what allow you to do all the awesome and exciting things that PWAâ(TM)s represent.

    Service workers are a persistent nightmare end users neither want nor deserve. Who else think it's a good idea to continue to run shit decoupled from website other than website owners?

    . Create an app loading screen
    . Use push notifications
    . Add offline support
    . Create an initial app UI to load instantly
    . Prompt installation to the home screen through browser-guided dialog

    ZOMG... want..

    Apple treats web apps like second class citizens because they donâ(TM)t generate money like native apps in the app store.

    Also second class citizens to app developers who know if they write an app even if it just loads a website they get more access to your device than any rational web browser would ever allow.

    This leaves only people left who really care about web apps the crowd who persists with initiatives to turn websites into comically slow and unusable applications. In this environment the only relevant measure of success is how "popular" the JavaScript framework you used to get there currently is.

    Having to explicitly tell your users how to add your app to their home screen is a horrible way to have to go about things. In fact, after doing it a couple times, I stopped, because it makes your app look like a lower quality product.

    And as soon as you introduce a hybrid wrapper, youâ(TM)ve still got to go through the app store. Youâ(TM)ll still have to play into Appleâ(TM)s game and pay $100 to get access to the app store, and the 30% taxâSâ"âSbut youâ(TM)re still only running in a webview.

    None of this is rocket science so let me help you with the basics.

    - Websites are launched from bookmarks.

    - Software is launched from application launcher.

    Just because you call your website an "app" doesn't make it so.

    One of the biggest things you have to do as a developer is decide

  52. What the Fu... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have got to be shitting me.

    I'm really glad that Apple is refusing to let scumbags cram more twitchy, battery-draining, owned-by-every-East-European-Hacker-on-Earth garbage down my throat.

    "Progressive" my ass. More like "Regressive."

  53. About PWAs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, the lack of knowledge about PWAs around here is really disturbing.

    First, I agree that loading screens are not a great example of what PWAs can do - actually its a bad example: In PWAs, service workers allow you to store data on your device - so that the next time you load the page, the last information you saw is there again without loading time.

    Then, push notifications. I agree that they are mostly a nuisance - but imagine building an webapp which relys on for example scheduled notifications to remind the user that he needs to take the bus at 9:00 at 8:30 - it is a great feature if used correctly.

    Then the point about web apps getting to bloated - yes, but this is to be avoided by the developer. Decide for one framework and then try to use as little else as possible.

    Now to the topic: I think Apple is just content with their app store money they can put out of developers pockets (30%) without doing too much for it - granted, at least they review the apps. But this is exactly why I find it surprising that a developer site like Slashdot is full of such negative comments about promising new technologies that enables developers to bring their software to the people without needing to rely on third parties (e.g. App Stores) too much.

    I for one think that people will eventually get tired of having to download an app for every little thing and will be happy if some services open just in the browser. And if its on Android (80%) they will be able to add it to the home screen and feel virtually no difference to a native app at a certain point - so I really like what PWAs can do for us developers :)

    1. Re:About PWAs by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      In PWAs, service workers allow you to store data on your device - so that the next time you load the page, the last information you saw is there again without loading time.

      You mean like cookies?

      Here's an honest question: I don't see a single reason why, as a user, PWAs are in any way beneficial, and I can think of several downsides to them. Can you tell me why I would want such things to run on my devices?

    2. Re:About PWAs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, similar to cookies. But cookies are a bit more limited. I think more about really loading all user saved data out of a JSON string when loading the page on client and just then go to the server to refresh this data in the background (means near instant usage, similar to apps).

      Why you would run such a thing on your device - why not, probably you already do? :-)
      As a user, in best case, you don't even notice if you are on a PWA or not. Let's take some big name example: YouTube. Do you know if this is a PWA or not? It supports notifications, and I am quite sure they are working on having offline features as well. And the advantage of that is, that people searching for YouTube videos on Google don't need to download to YouTube app to get the same experience as people who decide to opt in and download the whole app (which can be seen as nuisance to make these 4 extra clicks and wait these extra 15 seconds for installation).

      For me the biggest plus is the following: I can pack a whole webpage in one "big" (200kb) HTML/CSS/JS File which needs to be loaded once. After that, all user interaction is done in the DOM - no server interaction whatsoever. It frees me from having to have unnecessary server infrastructure, and together with offline mode it also free's the user of that burden. So in some ways, it enables me to build an app inside a browser. Now the only question you have to face is: why not build a real app then? But then again - you wouldn't just need to build an Android App - but also an iOS App - and at some point you may have to worry again to build a Windows Phone (RIP) App. While if you build a PWA, every device that has a browser can potentially run it - just the guys on iOS and older devices will miss out on some features which makes loading times mostly disappear and some "comfort" features like push messaging.

      So in my point of view, I don't really see any downsides to this - I mean the term Progressive Web App doesn't really mean too much - it just means its a website that uses the newest technology to make sure the user has a seamless, app like experience. How you exactly use this technology to the users advantage is the question - but I like new opportunities - especially as the web is still a free platform. So I applaud Google for pushing this platform instead of just being happy with also getting 30% of the share in their PlayStore.

      By the way, here are 2 examples of progressive websites - source code also available on GitHub:
      https://shop.polymer-project.org/
      https://news.polymer-project.org/

    3. Re:About PWAs by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I really do appreciate it.

    4. Re:About PWAs by tepples · · Score: 1

      Cookies are for storing tokens that represent authenticated sessions, usually smaller than 1 kB. Because a cookie is sent along with every request to an origin (or to other origins in the same registered domain), it's not ideal for storing an entire document that the user has chosen to make available for reading later while his laptop or tablet is out of range of home Wi-Fi.

  54. Good for Apple by JohnFen · · Score: 1

    As someone who blocks Javascript by default, the fewer sites doing the PWA thing, the better.

  55. More to PWA than notifications... by acroyear · · Score: 1, Insightful

    A LOT more.

    The heart of is that people want an "app" experience on a phone/tablet. You could say it is just a browser page, but it isn't. They don't like running shit in browsers. Browsers are for reading crap that apps redirect them to. They aren't for, say, music players, video players, or games.

    Yet html5/javascript can do all that.

    PWA, through the manifest, is a way to package the html5 application so that it doesn't need the heavyweight crap that a Cordova/PhoneGap packaged app carries. You like this app? Add it to your homescreen. Great, now it will act independently of a browser tab, use full-frame so you don't see the address bar (the ugliest part of the browser experience and the most wasted space), and just like a real app with its background services (something ALL apps have the ability to add, things you're VERY used to like Facebook notifications, email notifications, twitter notifications), it can do polls against a server and let you know stuff, and a click on that will bring up the app. JUST LIKE Facebook, Twitter, Email.

    From a development perspective, it takes all of the platform specific bullshit out. I get to write a service worker in javascript that will run on every hardware platform because javascript is what it is, and my clients will have the same experience. That's even IF you want a service worker and have a need for that.

    For one app I maintain, a basic music client for Subsonic, I don't even need that. All I need is the manifest file to be respected so that when launched from the homescreen, it takes over full-screen instead of being treated like a browser tab (hello firefox, fix that crap), because NOBODY likes a music player that sits in a browser.

    THAT is what PWAs give you: the ability to write your application code, including its background processes, in javascript, to standard APIs.

    Treating "push notifications" as if their only purpose was to shove advertising in your face is totally ignoring the very experience of notifications in apps you have been living with since the invention of the iphone in the first damn place.

    --
    "But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
    -- Joe
    1. Re:More to PWA than notifications... by swilver · · Score: 1

      You know, what you just described sounds like the drive behind every security hole in our software these days: to save costs (by making it easier to develop in this case) and to hell with what the user wants.

      Please stay away from my phone with your bloated Cordova/PhoneGap/Javascript VM junk -- luckily they work so poorly they're easy to recognize.

    2. Re:More to PWA than notifications... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " because NOBODY likes a music player that sits in a browser."

      So write a real music player that people might like. Problem solved. Wishing to hide that your player is a web app by having it go fullscreen is just window dressing. Do people dislike the browser view or do they distrust a web app? I believe the comments here indicate that people distrust web apps.

      I find your arguments disingenuous and unconvincing. Isn't it possible to write applications that are platform independent without making them a webpage? Yes? Well then there is the distinct probability that you are arguing for the ability to push spam and otherwise abuse the computer user by exerting more control than users tolerate. All the positive points you make are satisfied by Java. PWA just makes it obvious to the user that they are giving a webpage control while making it easier to constantly nag the user at will.

      People aren't treating notifications as if their only purpose is the push crap in their faces. People are just recognizing that the primary motive of advocates is to push crap in our faces.

      It's like teen sex. Sure it can lead to a life of marital bliss but most likely you just want to screw us.

    3. Re:More to PWA than notifications... by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      I completely understand the appeal of PWAs to developers.

      I don't understand the appeal to users. And my selfish reason for hoping they don't catch on is because it will reduce the amount of software that I will have available to me, since there's no way I'm going to allow complex Javascript to run.

  56. Apple users should demand Progressive web apps! by chipschap · · Score: 1

    I would think, given the typical Apple user profile, that they would demand Progressive web apps! Except Apple, by nature, is non-PC, so there is already a problem.

  57. Re:Safari is the new IE6. RTFM it's not just ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So just ignore GPs points about it not needing to be installed through the store, or how it's the same codebase cross device...

  58. Apple already supports the good kind of web apps. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We already solved this with a simple, well-supported system... which the web standards assholes promptly marked as "deprecated".

    We have appcache files, which allow web pages to be installed and used offline like a native application, but also to be automatically updated whenever the user is online and there's a newer version available, and they work fine on both iPhones and Android.

    "Service workers" accomplish the same thing in a much more complicated way (basically requiring you to use libraries and tools, whereas appcache is simple enough for individual web developers of ordinary skill and time constraints to understand and use just by reading a tutorial and typing up their own files manually), and add power that users probably don't want web pages to have over their devices, like push notifications.

    Deprecating appcache, telling web developers not to use an established and useful standard, in favor of service workers, a dodgy, poorly-supported, and not-clearly-desirable alternative, seems to be a dirty move to create income opportunities for the people involved in creating and pushing the service workers model.

    We should probably kill service workers, purge the people who supported it from standards organizations as corrupt, and thank Apple for doing their part. At any rate, we certainly shouldn't discontinue support for appcache, which works fine and is better in many ways (including important limitations on what it can do).

  59. Push Notifications can suck my $%& by omfglearntoplay · · Score: 1

    Push notifications on web pages? No way in hell would I trust that, are you crazy? Kudos to Apple for avoiding it. Just like Apple helped kill Flash, I hope they help kill this new invader.

  60. Smells like Flash. by Darkness+Of+Course · · Score: 1

    Apple didn't support that resource heavy anti-security program either.

    Because their customer experience is better without that old crap. Or this new crap.

  61. NES games loaded in 1 second by tepples · · Score: 1

    The app is going to take time to load regardless of whether or not there's a splash screen.

    Applications for the Family Computer (released as Nintendo Entertainment System outside Japan) loaded in less than 1000 milliseconds, which was more than enough time to decompress 5 KiB of title screen data into video memory. It had a 1.8 MHz processor. Devices nowadays have a processor clocked at closer to 1.8 GHz, which (to slightly oversimplify) is 1000 times as fast as the one in the NES. Why don't applications load in 1 millisecond?

    1. Re:NES games loaded in 1 second by retchdog · · Score: 2

      because the applications are doing different (sometimes actually better) things now and people want shiny shit rather than plain text, but they're not willing to (shudder) pay money for software, so a bunch of ads have to load also, in order to pay for the service, and those are not really cpu-bound but i/o-bound, and really when the value-add is in networking and information exchange why would you expect the CPU to be the bottleneck anyway?

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    2. Re:NES games loaded in 1 second by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give me a 1.8 GHz 64-bit processor, and I'm pretty sure I can pull an arbitrary 5K block from ROM, load it, and decompress it faster than that, assuming the ROM is fast enough.

    3. Re:NES games loaded in 1 second by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Comparing apples with oranges. The modules for the NES / Famicom are hardly comparable to loading stuff from a HD or, worse, web page. What you're doing there is essentially the equivalent of stuffing a bank of RAM (or, more precisely, ROM) into a memory slot, turning your machine on and this Rom being hardwired to be part of the machine you're using.

      If you do this, it's trivial to be fast. Of course you can do this, and only this, with this setup. Displaying something else requires at the very least to replace the rom.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  62. Good. Web is killing the desktop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's also why Apple products are much safer and actually work. You people need to travel more and then you will understand why you can't depend on "web apps."

  63. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't use Apple garbage; but, I do not want yet more invasive javascript; as a matter of fact, if browser makers could limit javascript functionality, that would be great.

  64. Only a Mac can run all applications by tepples · · Score: 1

    Currently, users understand web sites as ephemeral, as any services they provide can disappear at any time, and like users, developers see them as something they can change at any time. This is very different from conventional standalone programs, where users see them as something they have control over (and can thus trust more), and developers see them as for-pay version upgrades.

    Which in turn require for-pay platform upgrades. Want to run this application? Buy a Windows license. Want to run that application? Buy a Mac and put it on a KVM with your existing computer. Want to run all desktop applications without having to carry multiple computers around with you? A MacBook with a Windows 10 license in a virtual machine and GNU/Linux in another virtual machine is your only (legal) option, as only a Mac runs macOS applications.

    1. Re:Only a Mac can run all applications by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      ..or just pick an OS that best services the applications you want/need and live with its shortcomings. No os is perfect, but they're all better than trying to build workflows in a browser.

  65. Social conservative applications by tepples · · Score: 1

    In at least the United States, "conservative" also encompasses social conservatism, which tends to entail being opinionated in a discriminatory way. A conservative application may not support character sets other than US ASCII or user interfaces other than English, discriminating against users from minority cultures. A conservative application may not support screen readers, discriminating against users with vision disabilities.

    1. Re:Social conservative applications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good, Make the web Great Again. Fuck foreigners, multibyte characters, and emojis!

    2. Re: Social conservative applications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      godwins law seems to have a new avatar. how the fuck did a thread on safari turn into trump and the Americans?

    3. Re: Social conservative applications by cas2000 · · Score: 1

      godwin's law hasn't changed at all. it's still about mentioning nazis.

  66. Not every app is for all platforms by tepples · · Score: 1

    If I want an app I'll downloads it.

    That doesn't help if the application isn't in the App Store because it's only on Google Play Store, with a notice on the developer's website to the effect "Please back our Kickstarter campaign to fund porting this application to iPhone and iPad."

  67. Just to counter the negativity... by jwdb · · Score: 1

    Agreed, most push notifications are a pain. However, the post-after-post of "Nobody will ever want push notifications!" on this story is somewhat knee-jerk, as there are *some* reasonable uses of the notification bar.

    For instance, I appreciate that my media player shows up in my notification bar with currently-playing information and controls, and I appreciate that some websites do somewhat likewise when I stream via their web page rather than my player. Likewise, notifications of updates from things that I've explicitly subscribed to are generally welcome. These may not apply to you, but "nobody wants this" is an overstatement.

  68. And that's just what Apple would want. by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    Well, Duh. That's just what Apple wants. PWAs are a cornerstone of Googles "Everything is Web" Strategy. Apple and Google are direct adversaries in this field.
    Apple says "Buy our devices". Google says "Buy what you want, but use our services."
    However, if Google lures everybody to the web for everything using PWAs, WASM and such, they will create further incentives for people to move to Chrome OS and the Google ecosystem entirely. This is something Apple does not want. All-in-all Google has a significant long-term edge with Chromebooks basically being the poor mans MacBook and Apple relying on being percieved as a high-profile luxury brand for hardware.

    Apple would so whish to be able to kill off the uibiquitous web in favour of native platforms and their strength which in turn would strengthen the Apple position. Yet it may actually be to late for that.

    We'll see how this plays out.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  69. Offline support to save money on cell bill by tepples · · Score: 1

    I don't need offline support. Who does?

    People who don't have hundreds of dollars per year for cellular Internet on top of the hundreds of dollars per year they already pay for home Internet. Offline support allows a user to load a web application on a laptop, board a bus, read the downloaded works in the web application, reply to them if necessary, and upload the changes when he returns home to his Internet connection.

  70. Astroturfing, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "While Google has embraced the technology and added support for it in Chrome for Android"

    Oh, that's bullshit. Google hasn't EMBRACED the technology, they FUCKING MADE IT. This is 100% Google's idea and they're RAMMING IT DOWN PEOPLES THROAT. Neither Microsoft nor Apple want this.

    Next news article: Sony annoyed that Microsoft refuses to embrace the PlayStation instead of the Xbox. That's how seriously dupliticious this is.

  71. Gtk# to replace HTML as app platform by tepples · · Score: 1

    .Net is fairly close; but lacks actual solid cross-platform implementations for desktop applications.

    Now we're getting somewhere constructive. What is Gtk# missing in solidity?

  72. No Javascript by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks goodness my default browser profile is a castrated one, with *no javascript at all*. Yes, that's right: not NoScript or UserJs or what, simply nothing (this tends to confuse the heck out of modern browsers: this profile tends to crash unexpectedly from time to time, but... whatever. I don't have high esteem for a browser anyway).

    Only select web sites get an extra profile, and then after having weighted my reasons for that. As to the others... if they show up as black (or white) hole in my scriptess browser, I go "meh", add them to my blacklist and do something else.

    Sometimes I whine about those sites, just to lower their reputation.

  73. Remember Active Desktop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google is now Microsoft. Chrome is IE.

  74. Re:Lots of people use Safari. More than use Firefo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's because, despite Safari's many minor quirks and annoyances, it's actually not a bad browser - on a par with Chrome, but why install Chrome when it's no better than Safari?. And, as you say, Mozilla has spent the last few years driving Firefox users away by trying to be anything but Firefox...

    (I've got Chrome installed, but it only ever gets used for (a) testing, and (b) browsing through a secure proxy - I've got it permanently configured to use that simply because it's easier to fire up Chrome than swap proxies in Safari or FF).

  75. Go native or go home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why don't we just retro-fit ALL programming languages into the browser so nobody has to learn anything new?

    This entire article is essentially an essay on hypocrisy: "Apple won't support PWAs! They give special preference to native because $$$! But I want in on that sweet, sweet native cash! But I don't want to develop anything twice or learn something new! And I definitely don't want to understand the difference between demographics of Apple and Android devices, and why it might actually be a good idea to develop for Apple anyway because their users tend to spend more money than those who use Android devices! Boohoohoo!"

    Full disclosure: I write web-apps for a living.

  76. Follow the money by nicolaiplum · · Score: 1

    If the browser loads the complete user experience for every online service, there are no apps from the app store and there is no revenue from the app store.

    Apple wants apps that install on the device, and has done so ever since they started the app store. They want the money from the app store and they want the control over what runs on the hardware they sell.

    This isn't the first time that Mobile Safari has been seen to be deficient in capabilities compared to other mobile browsers, and it's because Apple doesn't want browsers, they want apps, via their app store, giving them control over the whole device user experience and revenue from the whole user experience.

    --
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled"
    1. Re:Follow the money by Black.Shuck · · Score: 1

      Relative to their hardware sales, Apple makes almost no money from third-party developers. It's a rounding-error by comparison.

      But native-apps do create a good experience for users. Which helps users decide to buy, and stick with iPhones.

      So native-apps are certainly important for Apple, but not in the way you've alluded to. They make money off them, yes, but that's more because of the principle that Apple thinks each part of their company should be able to stand alone without leaning on the others.

      Like many commenters here have already implied, Apple sees the web as the web and native-apps as native-apps, and never the twain shall meet. That web-apps are trying to get the same privilege as native-apps is purely, PURELY a convenience for the developer, not the user.

      Heck, I want an easy life and easy money too. I feel the pull of the mob that would march up and down in front of 1 Infinite Loop, chanting "Why shouldn't the developers in Apple work their butt off to make MY life easier? Why can't I just stay inside my web-app box and get the benefits of native?"

      Well, that's because Apple's order of precedence is: Themselves, their users, 3rd party developers.

  77. Re:Lots of people use Safari. More than use Firefo by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    Safari does exactly what I want from a browser: Gives me a web view with a minimal UI and gets out of the way, while integrating with the rest of the system cleanly (e.g. using the keychain for storing credentials) and using OS sandboxing to isolate renderers. Well, actually, unlike Chrome, the Apple devs did the split in WebKit so Safari doesn't actually do this, any consumer of the WebKit framework gets sandboxing for free, whereas Blink requires everyone to implement their own sandboxing.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  78. Stick this where the sun doesn't shine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tis is exactly the sort of crap that has made the web an unusable mess of spinning, dancing, shouting, useless, malware infested crap.

    Javascript needs to die. Browsers should server static read only pages.

    If you need an application use a damned application that runs on the desktop and can be virus checked, firewalled and uninstalled etc. etc.

    Javascript is cancer of the interent.

  79. Re:Lots of people use Safari. More than use Firefo by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 2

    You've also got to read between the lines to see what's really going on here. PWA isn't some global internet standard, it's something Google made up. The complaint is that Apple isn't supporting Google's pet cool idea of the week. Nor, by the looks of it, is anyone other than Google. Because it's Google's pet idea of the week, and it's nearly the end of the week. There'll be a new pet idea appearing on Monday.

  80. Buy yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An Android and quit your bitching. No one wants that shit. Only thing pushed will be ads when you are off line.

  81. JS = Security Hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    JavaScript in it's current form is easy to exploit.

  82. Abuse of power by Paradroid888 · · Score: 1

    There's a valid viewpoint that the web would be a better place without JavaScript running in the client. John Gruber has been saying this recently.

    It's too late to go back now of course - we have got used to web apps (as opposed to sites) that are responsive, dynamic and mimic desktop applications. But if client-side scripting had never been invented, the web would now be a better place in terms of having much less of the crappy payloads we get with modern sites.

    I love the open web but the problem is that JavaScript has been abused by people in the marketing/advertising/big-data space, and notifications and worker processes would be their next target.

  83. Yes, but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... is it web-scale like MongoDB?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2F-DItXtZs

  84. Is this why the Twitter website is a pain in the a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try to create an icon that takes you to a Twitter user's feed on Android using Chrome, the shit defy your expectations.

  85. Bullshit by allo · · Score: 1

    First: Ignore apple, when apple ignores you.
    Second: Who wants a loading screen for a webapp? When i use a webapp, i do so because i just want the interface without the crap, which needs loading screens until the program started. Push notifications from a website? No thank you I am not missing it.

  86. Safari is the IE6 of the 2010s by terjeber · · Score: 1

    Fck Apple

  87. Re:Lots of people use Safari. More than use Firefo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you're saying that Firefox beats desktop Edge and desktop Safari combined. Beating default OSX and Windows 10 browsers is not too bad!

    Although, we saw what happened to Blackberry and Windows Phone which were the best of the also-rans, though that's in a different market.

    If Safari (due to presence on iOS) is holding back the web, that's a good thing. I don't want yet to upgrade to quad core, 16GB RAM and DX12 GPU to keep up with the web. Well, I do want already but the price of 16GB RAM costs more than motherboard + CPU + GPU (A8-9600 combined CPU+GPU is out, look it up!)