Are the Chrome features useful? Are they open? If it’s bad for users (e.g. some new ad tracking) or if it’s proprietary and thus expensive to license or reverse engineer that’s one thing, but if it’s not that, then refusing to ever adopt those standards (or to provide their own alternatives) is either foolish NIH syndrome on Apple’s part or it’s greed.
> If it’s bad for users (e.g. some new ad tracking)
Yes
> but if it’s not that, then refusing to ever adopt those standards (or to provide their own alternatives) is either foolish NIH syndrome on Apple’s part or it’s greed.
Firefox gets paid by Google. A lot. Maybe part of their agreement is to not implement some features because it would compete with Chrome. I don't really know, and I don't really care what Firefox does or doesn't do. I only care that Apple does not allow other browsers to use their own browser engines. Opera mobile also implements the APIs I need (on Android). Even MS Edge supports the APIs. Firefox can join Apple in being lame, I don't really care.
"Every browser that doesn't jump when Google says 'jump' is driven by malicious actors and intent that I can't articulate beyond some tin-foil conspiracy theories" is not as good an argument as you think it is
I really don't care what browsers do or don't implement. I only care that Apple doesn't allow other browsers to use their own browser engines on iOS. That's it, that's all, and it also got notice from the DOJ, which is one of many reasons Apple is getting sued by the DOJ.
Until Apple lets other browser engines on iOS, they are behaving like greedy tyrants.
> I really don't care what browsers do or don't implement.
Oh yes, you do. To the point of inventing contract clauses for Firefox.
It's just extremely unfortunate that Safari is now between a rock and a hard place (only because of Apple) as really they are the only web engine of note to withstand "whatever Chrome spits out is standard now"
Please stop this now. You are in breach of several guidelines, notably these ones:
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.
I can't fathom how a subthread about browser engines became so toxic. HN is a place for curious conversation and it is only a place where people want to participate because others make the effort to raise the standards rather than dragging them down. Please do your part to make this place better not worse.
I mean, @lepton literally wrote this: "Maybe part of their agreement is to not implement some features because it would compete with Chrome" about Firefox. No smearing required.
> Your deceptive rhetoric in defense of Apple's anti-competitive business practices i
I literally say nothing avout Apple's business practices. All I'm talking are a bunch of Chrome-only non-standards that people on HN pretend are standards and claim that everyone must immediately implement them
>I mean, @lepton literally wrote this: "Maybe part of their agreement is to not implement some features because it would compete with Chrome" about Firefox. No smearing required.
Then you should have been more specific, but that is still not even remotely a conspiracy. It is a completely valid potential thesis. Thus, your attempt to hastily dismiss it as "conspiracy" is factually an act of smearing.
>I literally say nothing avout Apple's business practices. All I'm talking are a bunch of Chrome-only non-standards that people on HN pretend are standards and claim that everyone must immediately implement them
Your diatribes and foul language against the Chrome dev team have been in constant service of justifying Apple's actions at all cost, while outright ignoring and downplaying their evident conflict of interest. Furthermore, you need to stop with these gross misrepresentations of "HN pretend are standards and claim that everyone must immediately implement them" which is a distortion, that you keep forcefully putting in people's mouths, despite many people calling you out on it numerous times throughout this thread.
> but that is still not even remotely a conspiracy. It is a completely valid potential thesis
I dunno, man. It's claiming a literal conspiracy between Google and Firefox to make Firefox worse. In reality, it's an outlandish proposition because Google already holds such high market share for Chrome, they need Firefox as a viable competitor to avoid antitrust concerns. The idea that they'd contractually (or behind-closed-doors) engage in hobbling Firefox is fantasy territory -- literally conspiracy theorizing. Because of the huge legal and financial risks that would entail if ever discovered. So, when something's an actual conspiracy theory, it's right to call it out as such.
> Your diatribes and foul language against the Chrome dev team... you need to stop with these gross misrepresentations...
I'm Ctrl+F-ing here through troupo's comments and not seeing anything like that. Their points seem perfectly reasonable, that Firefox also doesn't implement these features, and therefore Apple's actions might be very reasonably explained as having the same genuine reasons.
On the other hand you're the one saying things like:
> Apple will uphold its usual charade to claim that it's about pRiVacy & sEcuRiTy
> Your bias in this matter couldn't be more obvious, due to your dedication to distorting any evidence that refutes Apple's propaganda narrative
> It's absolutely insane how you keep repeating the exact same argument with no additional information like a bot who is incapable of processing new information
> that's the only way you can uphold the illusion that your underhanded Apple propaganda is anything other than a whitewashing of Apple's conflict of interest that motivates every single one of their decisions
> Your rhetoric is so vapid and detached from reality
> It's incredible how you insist on being so obnoxious
> That reads like an #ad that Apple would pay for
It looks like you're the one imagining conspiracies in Apple's behavior -- "that motivates every single one of their decisions" -- and attacking others in your own "diatribes". And you're the one using incredibly insulting and inappropriate language. It seems to be your comments that have a lot of inappropriate tone for HN, which is presumably why I see a lot of them downvoted. Maybe you should think about whether this is really the best way to engage here, maybe re-read the HN guidelines?
> That's why you didn't even bother discussing the evidence I've provided
I don't engage in argument with people who accuse me of having another account. If you want to have productive discussions on HN, I suggest you rethink the way you go about them.
This is false and it's against the guidelines to accuse people of shilling/astroturfing/coordinated activity. You've posted enough in this thread, and the thread is days old. Nobody is seeing these comments other than us moderators. Please stop.
