> The result has been API enclosure; appropriation of commodity capabilities that themselves are standards-based — e.g., USB, Bluetooth, NFC, file storage, etc. — by a proprietary ecosystem and denial of even the safest and most privacy-preserving versions of those features by open, interoperable, and standards-based application platforms.
WebUSB, WebBluetooth, WebNFC are not standards. They are Blink-only non-standard APIs.
Google employees wrote these specifications and proposed that they become standards. In order to become standards, they need more than one independent implementation. So in practice, this means that they ask their counterparts at Mozilla and Apple for feedback and approval.
Both Mozilla and Apple rejected WebUSB, WebBluetooth, and WebNFC on privacy and security grounds.
This is what Mozilla has to say about WebUSB:
> we believe that the security risks of exposing USB devices to the Web are too broad to risk exposing users to them
This is what Mozilla has to say about WebBluetooth:
> This model is unsustainable and presents a significant risk to users and their devices.
This is what Mozilla has to say about WebNFC:
> We believe Web NFC poses risks to users security and privacy
This is not Apple’s doing. The reason these things are not standards is because Google have been unable to convince anybody outside of Google to implement them, even when they pay Mozilla half a billion dollars a year.
Perhaps you think that Mozilla and Apple are too sensitive about potential privacy and security issues relating to new protocols proposed by the world’s biggest ad company. Did you know that after Google wrote a spec. for WebMIDI and shipped it in Chrome, porn companies started using it to fingerprint and track people?
> Apple alone must be on the hook to implement any and every web platform feature shipped by any and every other engine.
This is basically the author saying “Hey, you know those specifications we proposed that nobody wanted to implement but us? Let’s force Apple to implement them! Now we’ve got two independent implementations and they can be standards now!”
Why on earth would he do this?
> Hi, I'm Alex Russell, a Microsoft Partner Product Architect on the Edge team and Blink API OWNER. […] From 2008-2021, I was a software engineer at Google working on Chrome, Blink, and the web platform.
And if you look at it, this is part of a long series of articles (running for several years, since 2021) titled "Browser Choice Must Matter" that seems to primarily (perhaps solely? haven't read them all) focus on Safari.
Without iOS Safari, Blink would have a greater market share than Internet Explorer had at its height. People’s “choice” would be between Blink, Blink, Blink, and Blink. I’m not sure why somebody whose job it is to work on Blink can’t see the problem with that.
We’ve seen a web monoculture before; it was terrible for the web and took years to recover from. Let’s not do that again.
What if the reason for this monoculture is because every other browser vendor was forced out of business because they cannot go after the most sought-after customers?
Personally, I uninstall Chrome whenever I see it (on Android, I first use Chrome to download the F-Droid app store, then I uninstall/disable Chrome promptly).
But if you do agree with the author that Safari is so poor that noone would keep it, if other browsers were available on iOS… Isn't that a pretty weak argument against browser choice? You're basically agreeing with the author that Safari is so poor noone would use it if it wasn't mandatory? How's that a good thing we're all forced to keep using such an uninspiring piece of software?
> I’m not sure why somebody whose job it is to work on Blink can’t see the problem with that.
I believe this is one of those self-answering questions. He can't see the problem because for him it's not a problem. The Blink monopoly is the goal and the phrasing around choice is disingenuous. This would give Google effectively full control over web standards because no one would be around to slow them down.
Just because you don't see a problem with Apple's monopoly, doesn't mean that everyone for whom it's a problem is a Blink admirer or works for Google or Microsoft or Chrome or Blink.
I'm typing this in Firefox on a Mac; I usually uninstall Chrome even from Android, usually after first using it to install F-Droid, then Aurora Store; then it's disabled promptly. Why should I not be allowed to disable Safari?
Apple's iOS monopolies are a far bigger issue than Chrome. These issues you guys talk about, don't really exist for me. I use YouTube regularly without Chrome, I use Android without a Google Account, I use all the banking apps without Play Store. None of this is possible on iOS. On iOS, you cannot preserve your privacy at all, because everything depends on having an Apple Account, and being monitored by Apple. Hence, I don't take iOS or iPhone as a serious contender for a daily driver for me.
That is exactly why I started complaining about the Web being turned into ChromeOS Platform, thanks to all Chrome advocates (including devs using Blink like good old IE), and naturally Electron (aka MSHTML).
Can you kindly explain why Blink's monopoly is bad, but iOS Safari's monopoly is good?
Whilst at it, can you kindly explain how Blink is even a monopoly if it's actually separately distributed by 6+ distinct and unrelated/competing vendors, namely, Google, Microsoft, Brave, Vivaldi, Yandex, Opera, etc? Out of these 6 vendors, a total of at least 3 are running an entirely independent search engine, so, these aren't just "fronts", but real competitors.
Whilst at it, can you kindly explain why is it better than I have to use a Windows machine to configure my keyboard or mouse, or the Bluetooth headset, instead of using a web browser on any device with any OS? Or why do I have to download extra apps to get video conference access instead of using a Blink-based web browser from one of like half a dozen vendors?
I never have to use Chrome on any device besides ChromeOS; how exactly is it a monopoly when I can uninstall it once, and never see it on the same device ever again, even on Android, which is made by Google? How is it a monopoly when I don't even lose anything by replacing it with another browser, even on Android?
How exactly is Chrome the same as Edge or Brave or Vivaldi or Yandex Browser or Opera?
Why are there no browsers on iOS besides Safari, and how is that not a monopoly?
The "Internet Explorer" issue culminated with Microsoft attaining a market share that allowed them to stop all innovation and investment into the product, where the browser became substantially lagging behind the competition, as well as lagging substantially in standards compliance. Something that's currently an issue with Safari, not Chrome. (Please enlighten me if that's not the case — which exact standards does Chrome NOT support today? Else, how is supporting EXTRA experimental standards a bad thing?) Chrome and Blink, on the other hand, became market leaders not because they couldn't be uninstalled, but because of superior engineering; Blink is the only browser engine today where you can configure your gaming keyboard, for example. How's that NOT innovation?
Why do you have to keep redefining words according to some laws some politicians wrote, or misplaced analogies that turn things upside down, in order to sustain your points? The only Internet Explorer of today is Safari — severely lagging behind in most modern features, without any ability to be uninstalled or replaced on the iPhones and iPads. Again, I'm actually typing this in Firefox on desktop. As I said, I don't use Chrome, it's not even installed on my machines; because it doesn't have a monopoly in any way, on any device besides ChromeOS. (If you're curious on why I don't use Chrome or Blink on any desktop, it's because I cannot stand blurry text, and there's no way to disable blurry text in Safari, WebKit, Chrome or Blink, which have mandatory antialiasing, making all text super blurry and ugly; that's the actual monoculture we should be talking about.)
Nice character assassinations, but whose fault is it where ChromeOS is pioneering the field, and is alone in writing and implementing these sorts of standards?
You've conveniently omitted the wider effects of Apple's monopoly from this analysis. There's plenty of evidence of the actions they've taken to wall-garden anything and everything possible.
For example, let's talk about NFC. It's been acknowledged that NFC adoption by major third-party apps on Android is severely constrained by the notion of feature parity with iOS; meaning, since NFC cannot be done on iOS in an app, it's almost pointless to support NFC just on Android. About a decade ago, I could pay at Trader Joe's and other NFC terminals for my groceries directly with my Wells Fargo app; but, today, I cannot do that, because Wells Fargo no longer supports NFC in their app. Many other vendors in many countries went directly to the QR codes given the realities on the ground. (If Apple had unrestricted NFC access, would Walmart forgo NFC?) Yet now you're telling us it's Google's fault that "noone" wants to implement WebNFC, depriving it of the standards status, due to the lack of the independent implementations?
Now, let's talk about Mozilla. You're implying that Google is Mozilla's master, because they pay them half a billion a year. But is Mozilla allowed to ship a proper browser on iOS? And, even if they did, would they have a capability to access NFC, and implement WebNFC? Whose fault is that if not Apple's? So, who exactly besides Apple and Google are even capable of implementing WebNFC given the realities on the ground? Because clearly that's not Mozilla, since Apple won't let them, in more than one way.
And, BTW, what actual solutions or alternatives do you propose? Simply not have any standards for these things at all, since security and privacy?
Because without these "proprietary" "standards" that no other vendor wants, or has the capability, to implement, what exactly are we left with?
Are you serious in implying that Apple's fully proprietary APIs are better than Google's open standards that noone else wants to implement, simply because of the Apple/Google duopoly, since noone else is big enough, and since Mozilla has abandoned Firefox OS and Boot2Gecko?
WebUSB, WebBluetooth, WebNFC are not standards. They are Blink-only non-standard APIs.
Google employees wrote these specifications and proposed that they become standards. In order to become standards, they need more than one independent implementation. So in practice, this means that they ask their counterparts at Mozilla and Apple for feedback and approval.
Both Mozilla and Apple rejected WebUSB, WebBluetooth, and WebNFC on privacy and security grounds.
This is what Mozilla has to say about WebUSB:
> we believe that the security risks of exposing USB devices to the Web are too broad to risk exposing users to them
This is what Mozilla has to say about WebBluetooth:
> This model is unsustainable and presents a significant risk to users and their devices.
This is what Mozilla has to say about WebNFC:
> We believe Web NFC poses risks to users security and privacy
— https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/
This is not Apple’s doing. The reason these things are not standards is because Google have been unable to convince anybody outside of Google to implement them, even when they pay Mozilla half a billion dollars a year.
Perhaps you think that Mozilla and Apple are too sensitive about potential privacy and security issues relating to new protocols proposed by the world’s biggest ad company. Did you know that after Google wrote a spec. for WebMIDI and shipped it in Chrome, porn companies started using it to fingerprint and track people?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23679063
> Apple alone must be on the hook to implement any and every web platform feature shipped by any and every other engine.
This is basically the author saying “Hey, you know those specifications we proposed that nobody wanted to implement but us? Let’s force Apple to implement them! Now we’ve got two independent implementations and they can be standards now!”
Why on earth would he do this?
> Hi, I'm Alex Russell, a Microsoft Partner Product Architect on the Edge team and Blink API OWNER. […] From 2008-2021, I was a software engineer at Google working on Chrome, Blink, and the web platform.
— https://infrequently.org/about-me/
> The sham of WebKit as an Open Source project
Chrome was created as a fork of that “sham” open-source project.