Hacker News Reader

Comment by qbasic_forever | Hacker News Reader

Does web USB actually have a chance of making it into browsers besides Chrome? Last I read there was a strong pushback against it for security reasons from everyone else in the web standards space. I'd love to have access to serial devices and embedded hardware but I'm not holding my breath.

View on HN

I went really far down the WebUSB rabbit hole. It was almost perfect except for the fact that... when you do intensive stuff, Chrome has built in tab throttling in terms of CPU resources.

https://www.tenforums.com/tutorials/80233-enable-disable-goo...

I think it was something roughly like this but in terms of asking end users to use it... looked like a no go.

I wish iOS would let users write `libusb` code that worked. :(

It totally works. I've built robots controlled via web USB like 10 years ago. It's great. I've written midi tools that work with webmidi..they worked well also. Dunno why ppl are hating on it. Safari/FF are the new IE and IE is chromium now. It's a strange world but the way you get these standards adopted is to make killer apps that use them.

> Safari/FF are the new IE

Chrome is the new IE – doing whatever they want, and expecting every other browser vendor to enthusiastically chase them because they have the largest market share.

> I've built robots controlled via web USB like 10 years ago. It's great. I've written midi tools that work with webmidi

That sounds cool!

Chrome Experiments [1] has existed because Chrome has been at the forefront of the web for years.

[1] https://experiments.withgoogle.com/collection/chrome

Hope not, just use virtualhere or similar. No real point in it having to run in the browser.

Or, in the case of serial or remote debugging. Just run a terminal or gdb next to the target and connect to that instead.

No. Apple rejects almost anything from project Fugu as it pretty much closes all gaps between the web and native apps. It would violate their idea of the app store, not just in revenue, but also in control, deeper integration with apple-only features, etc.

Their excuse is "security". Which is funny as native apps do the exact same thing and more, often without dedicated permissions.

Mozilla also rejects most of it and joins Apple in claiming its due to security. It's speculation, but I think they really don't have the resources anymore to build such massive features and conveniently spin it into something good for the user.

The app store does provide a lot of traceability. If you get pwned via an app store app there’s someone’s door to knock on vs some random url you end up on.

Not sure I agree that makes it justified, but it does sketch me out a bit the more low level systems my browser has access to

I think if enough people start actually using it other browsers will eventually implement support.

But for now, yeah, it has the downside of being Chrome(ium) only, which makes it far less useful than it could be.

> I think if enough people start actually using it other browsers will eventually implement support.

There are several specs (like USB, Bluetooth, and MIDI) which are Chrome only, and for which other browser makers have explicitly stated they don’t agree with and will not support. Further, they have said that their rejection of these specs is due to security issues (e.g. providing full access to local hardware behind a single permission prompt)

This is much a higher bar than just lack of interest or resources to getting cross-browser compatibility.

Works great on all progressive browsers,

including Edge, Chromium, and Vanadium.

So... Chrome.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com