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.

40 of 302 comments (clear)

  1. 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. 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: 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?

    3. 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.
    4. 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.

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

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

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    6. Re:Loading screens. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah. Time to switch back to safari.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.)

    9. 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.

    10. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. 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 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.

    2. 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.

  6. 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 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.

  7. *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
  8. 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 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.

  9. 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.)

  10. 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?

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

    Progressive Web Malware

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  12. 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

  13. 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
  14. 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.
  15. 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."
  16. 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.

  17. 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?
  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.

  23. 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
  24. 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.