Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by akmarinov | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

akmarinov

0 chance of that happening

View on HN

yeah, apple is pretty stubborn on that one. I’m glad we have Chrome

The nice thing about Chrome is that any and every feature is implemented.

The bad thing about Chrome is that any and every feature is implemented.

There's still some things Safari prioritizes that other vendors don't have. For example, Chrome (and FF) still haven't fully implemented CSS colors level 4.

Chrome and Firefox are still clamping all CSS colors to sRGB. You literally can't render anything outside of sRGB with CSS. And almost all modern Apple devices are capable of the display-p3 color space.

This is very noticeable when rendering reds and greens, especially.

https://webkit.org/blog/10042/wide-gamut-color-in-css-with-d...

this is not true anymore, chromium added support for other color spaces this year

Chrome supports CSS level 4 color functions, but they're clamped to sRGB. AKA, basically useless.

https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=106861...

Edit: Actually, I don't think Chrome even supports CSS level 4 color functions. (It sounds like it's part of interop2022 though!)

Do you know when the clamping will be removed? I was referring to this https://chromestatus.com/feature/4592567062626304

Have I hallucinated? I wzs sure support for it was added recently

Edit according to the last comment in the issue you linked, this is on the 2022 roadmap, it's about time to properly support HDR!

Both Safari and Firefox are stubborn on that one (and most other hardware APIs), and for good reasons.

They can code working security models for other features so fingerprinting isn't a good reason.

Firefox is actually looking at WebMidi now so they've clearly had a change of heart. Apple will never do it because it means you can make hardware devices that interact with iPhones without going through the App Store.

> They can code working security models for other features so fingerprinting isn't a good reason.

And those working security models are?

> Firefox is actually looking at WebMidi now so they've clearly had a change of heart.

They didn't have a "change of heart". They most likely found a way to implement it the way it aligns with their position.

Pop up a dialog asking for permission to scan for devices.

That's not a working security model when it's required for about a dozen such permissions (camera, mike, location, bluetooth, serial ports, midi, ambient light, gyroscopes, hid, ...)

Chrome doesn't care and pushes these out.

Safari and Mozilla: protections in these specs are inadequate for the large surface area and complexity that these APIs require

That’s a week cop out from Apple when they offer far less protection in Native and allow apps to use Bluetooth to monitor your location.

Web Bluetooth has much BETTER security and privacy than native. By not providing functionality it forces apps to use the AppStore.

> That’s a week cop out from Apple

Too bad Mozilla also thinks the same way.

> By not providing functionality it forces apps to use the AppStore.

Nice conspiracy theory. I wonder if Mozilla execs are in on it.

Mozilla seems to have come around with WebMIDI, so thats a good step in the right direction. The functionality is not limited to device APIs, it covers every aspect of the browser.

See: https://open-web-advocacy.org/walled-gardens-report/#hobbled...

and

https://open-web-advocacy.org/walled-gardens-report/#missing...

> Mozilla seems to have come around with WebMIDI

And yet, we are in a thread about WebBluetooth.

Both Safari and Mozilla have the same stance: until a proper solution for privacy issues with hardware specs is found, we oppose them.

For WebMIDI it seems Mozilla has found a solution they are happy with. I wouldn't hold mu breath for others.

The links you provided assume Mozilla is in on Apple conspiracy, too. It's also a very one-sided take which completely ignores the elephant in the room. See this: https://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2021/08/breaking_th...

Web Bluetooth is significantly safer than native bluetooth + the safest car is the one that doesn't start is not a good direction for the web.

FYI only native signs a blank cheque and lets you scan for devices in the background. Web Bluetooth requires the browser itself to connect to a device and specify a service for you to connect too.

They might be forced to if the EU makes them to open up to other browser engines. I can see that happening

Seems like that is set to become a reality thankfully https://www.theregister.com/2022/04/26/apple_ios_browser/

Frankly, I think it’s either the worlds biggest coincidence or the only reason we are seeing any effort from Apple to start playing long overdue catch-up on the web now is because regulators started sniffing around.

It’s not a coincidence, Apple just didn’t have any motivation to invest in Safari until the threat of competition came along.

The increased investment is great for Safari and the web, now we just need some core functionality to support mobile web apps and I think we could really see it take off.

If the rest of the market were healthy, I'd be happy about this, but it's really, really not healthy. Apple's the only entity keeping Google from dictating web standards for everyone, and mobile Safari, specifically, is the only reason they have enough leverage to be able to do that. This will trade a monopoly on one tiny slice of the market (web browser engines—not web browsers, just the engine—on iOS devices) for Google having the whole pie.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com