At this point I don't think it matters -- if Google wants to do it, they'll do it. :/
Google isn't (yet) big enough to force it through: given iOS marketshare in the US it means web-app devs won't (can't?) do anything unless both Apple and Google adopt it (yes, there are plenty of Chrome-only websites, and Safari has been slow to adopt new web-standards, especially when they begin to tread on the toes of Apple's App Store (PWAs, WebUSB, etc).
----
That said, I am sympathetic to the reasons why orgs like banks want things like remote-device attestation (and am less sympathetic to the likes of the MPAA, etc) - it is unfortunate that better ideas are hard to come by.
I'm not. I mean, I am in theory; being able to warn a user their device might have some sort of malware upon trying to log into a banking website is useful, but we've already seen how banks handle these things in practice with mobile devices having attestation capabilities.
The result is some banking apps refuse to run on my phone with a very up-to-date and definitely not compromised LineageOS, but will happily run on devices several years out of date. Google SafetyNet can tell that the bootloader is locked and the system partition hasn't been modified, but can't tell that some malware has gained root access by privilege escalation.
I don't want them doing that to their websites as well. This technology should not be let loose on the world.
Cautious.
Many of those web-standards e.g. WebUSB have significant security vectors and have been used in the past to fingerprint devices for advertiser tracking. Also many have impacts on battery life and performance.
Whereas Chrome seems to be getting slower and bloated over time, Safari has remained fast and light-weight.
EDIT: Or do you mean "Private Access Tokens"? I just found out about this now and wow... looks like I've got some reading to do, but so-far it seems far more limited in scope than Google's version, and doesn't seem like it can be used to fingerprint visitors between sessions either. ( https://httptoolkit.com/blog/apple-private-access-tokens-att... )
Though I cannot help but wonder why exactly they did that. Some kind of a corporate requirement?
But also JFC, it is amazing how the moment it is pointed out that Apple is already doing a thing that's being railing at, and the reaction shifts from outrage to basically "I wonder what amazing and important reason they have for doing this" and "nobody but Apple can possibly be allowed to benefit from this because monopoly".
Apple's stated reason is exactly the same as Google's. To make a privacy-preserving anti-abuse signal for browsers. Apple need it because they are piping their best customers' traffic into what is basically an open sewer of IP reputation (Apple Private Relay), and need a way to avoid said customers giving up in disgust due to the high rate of captchas. Google need it because they want to remove all fingerprinting vectors, and need privacy-preserving replacements for legit use cases.
That's not what I said.
I don't care who does this, I will despise it either way, I just hope that Apple at least has a proper justification to do this.
> Google need it because they want to remove all fingerprinting vectors, and need privacy-preserving replacements for legit use cases
"Legit" defined by whom? Google? I am sorry but at this point Google has burned almost all trust, at least with me.
When they want, Google literally strongarms various vendors into implementing their codecs: https://www.protocol.com/youtube-tv-roku-issues
--- start quote ---
At the core of this allegation appears to be Google's decision to push hardware makers to adopt the AV1 codec, an open video codec that promises better-looking 4K videos at lower bitrates. As Protocol first reported in October, Google is requiring makers of Android TV devices to support AV1 starting this month. Additionally, Google also seems to push makers of smart TVs and streaming devices not based on Android TV to use AV1 for YouTube.
...
Google has long forced device makers to use the free VP9 codec for 4K YouTube streams.
--- end quote ---
Many of those are not "new web standards". Those are Chrome-only non-standards, and Firefox agrees with Safari on most of them.
As for PWAs, there's no such thing as a single PWA standard, and Safari has supported the vast majority of the PWA standards for years (but if you point that out, the goalposts of what constitutes a PWA shift faster than superheated plasma).
https://gist.github.com/pesterhazy/4de96193af89a6dd5ce682ce2...
Fortunately, Safari does support OPFS ( https://stackoverflow.com/a/71581910/159145 ) so provided you don't need all of IndexedDB's features and just need an async blob store for large blobs/files/etc (potentially gigabytes and beyond) then OPFS should work for you.
The amount of popular videos served on YouTube in VP9 and Opus may not exactly be WebM, but the codec support byproduct it pushed probably saved Google/YouTube a huge pile of cash.
That's different from making it a web standard. They will want cooperation from other browser vendors (not random people on the Internet) for that.
I doubt they'll make a serious effort at convincing anyone of anything until they decide what they want to do, which will be based on the results of the experiment.
Also, nobody really gives a shit about it. WEI could break adblockers and that would be a huge issue.