Apple's OS X: Why Mavericks is a move against the open web | Hacker News Reader

Apple's OS X: Why Mavericks is a move against the open web

theguardian.com

12 pointsgrey-area17 comments

More importantly it exposes the patent hypocrisy of the apple marketing strategy:

> "Rather than use Flash, Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and JavaScript – all open standards." [1]

They killed flash not just because of the technical issues but because it was a rival to their all encompassing applications platform. So is the web, but they know the web delivery mechanisms embodied by html5/css/js are not quite there yet and now is the time to make a land grab for the areas it will occupy in the next few years.

They don't want people accessing their Map infrastructure on non apple devices. They have made a trade off that Google took the opposite view on. Google decided to make money from the users making use of their maps and by careful monetisation of that data. Apple have decided to make money from the devices because that is what they have been doing to date... and attempting to make the devices compelling enough to grow an expensive application marketplace. The opposite to what is happening on Linux and Windows up to 7. Microsoft will presumably try the same approach with Windows 8. (In fact to me the windows 8 platform spread is if anything the same as Apple's errant approach)

1 - http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/

Why should Apple be suddenly forced to abandon their platform and create their apps on the web just because they connect to online services? Maps.app is a great smooth, native experience. Google's new WebGL maps are equally smooth in Chrome, which is impressive (the old ones didn't come close), but they're not native, and they're not what Apple has so much expertise with.

(I'm not so sure about iBooks, though; while anyone not on one of Apple's preferred Maps platforms can just use Google Maps, iBooks hold purchased content hostage with DRM. This is why I don't use iBooks. On the other hand, it's not like a "open web" app would be a good solution to this, since it would be just as annoying as the app to anyone wanting to customize their reading experience; getting rid of DRM would work better and make it pretty much OK for Apple to ignore other platforms. Maybe someday...)

Note that Apple is working on iWork for iCloud, so it's not ignoring the web entirely.

This article seems to make the assumption that a web browser and the open web are the same thing.

Personally, I've always wished more sites would just publish raw data without markup and allow me to determine how I read it, to me that's more open.

Really, if there's a sudden up-shot of apps on OS X for displaying 'web' content, it could go either way - lock-in or a more data-centric, less markup driven web. I'd welcome the latter, guess we'll have to wait and see.

You mean everything should be RSS?

The popularity of sites like readability, pocket and several others show some people agree with you. They strip the content down as though it was published in a semantic markup and people (including me) see that as added value.

No. Map data wouldn't be very useful in an RSS format :)

I mean more services and sites should provide APIs to provide access to the DATA.

While twitter have somewhat recanted on this recently, the ability for anyone to create a twitter client and use/display the data provided by twitter opened up things far more than just using "open formats".

The key point is, that there's a difference between DATA and DISPLAY - and I think this article missed that point.

However, it's concerns are valid

EDIT: Whoops - replied too fast, just saw your full comment after edit, everything except the flat 'no' still stands :)

What FUD. "Oh no, an application doesn't use the web! This must be an attack on the open web!" What a crock. Hyperbolic click-bait. The article does not fulfill the promises of the title, the byline is completely unsubstantiated, and the author's conclusions, such as they are, are completely unfounded. At most, the only correct points of the article are that A) Apple is attacking Google by having a Maps desktop app, B) a desktop app can be a better experience than a web app, and C) information may - and often more by design rather than by technical limitation - flow less freely through native apps than web apps.

From that to "Apple is making an attack on the open web, accelerating its walled garden strategy..." is an illogical leap that someone trying push an angle or sell ads could make.

Exactly. There seems to exist a strange, crazy fetishization of the WWW, as if it's by its nature unquestionably superior to other delivery methods. Even morally superior in some sense (i.e. if you make a native application instead of a web based one, you're a horrible, sinister person). It's just nonsense.

So Apple is against the open web because they built a Maps app instead of a maps website?? Maybe they did it like this because most stuff Apple does on the web sucks? They have more expertise in building native software. And maybe, just maybe, their customers prefer it.

I bet an awful lot of the open web will be built on systems running Mavericks. So there's that to consider too.

Our "trucks" need upgrading too. Making attractive trucks that have all of the powers of creation you want (and a shameful caveat, without perfect secrecy) seems like a boon to the open web to me.

Right idea wrong arguments - Apple has always hated their users having experiences they could not control. So the open web is indeed a threat for them especially with browsers (sadly slowly) turning into universal runtimes it could threaten their iOS model and they are pushing OsX into that direction too. So in the long run expect as much tightening as they can get away with on the browser front. "Think of the security" is the new "Think of the children".

But apple maps don't have a reason to be web site - there is google maps that they could not match, so they are forced to go a different route.

I tried to venture into web dev , being a desktop coder and frankly I came back. Foremost most of the so called "web technologies" are just desktop software which includes anything that goes inside your web browser. And to be even more frank Web is against Web , a lot more than Desktop is against Web. Web is a mess, why would Apple or any coder that takes design into serious consideration be part of the web ? Its a big pile of mess that will take a long time to be shorted out. I am macos user myself, an Apple fan, but I prefer using cross platform open source tools (currently coding in Pharo) so as a developer I don't care about Mavericks or anything that locks me to a specific platform.

For everyone that is ready to tolerate the shit that hogs your computer offering you no substantial improvement I will have to say go for it, I am sure web development will be waiting with open arms. Desktop is not without its kind of flaws, but lets say I am so glad I am not a pro coder so I don't have to follow nonsense overhyped crap in the name of making a living.

Not having javascript or browsers forced down my throat is not a disadvantage its actually a huge advantage. Ask me again when Web reaches the state Desktop really is. If it does then I will be 100% behind it. But until then, open web ? Hell no !!!

What utter rubbish. Apple have their own proprietary mapping data and are exposing it through a Mac App. In what way is that anything to do with the web?

In no time flat I can think of a handful of reasons why Apple has exposed their mapping data through an app rather than a web site. Firstly they probably can't expose it on the web even if they want to due to licensing restrictions on the data they have sourced. I wouldn't mind betting they signed for non-web rights. Secondly by having the data in an app on iOS and OSX they can integrate the two via iCloud such as with shared pins, shared routing info, etc. Finally if the mapping app is local, it can integrate better with other local OSX apps such as iPhoto for displaying geo-tagged photos.

Meanwhile, Apple releases a bunch of fully native web versions of their iWork suite, because it makes sense to do so. Honestly, I expect much better than this from the Guardian.

To be fair, there's no reason you couldn't share pins with a web app, as long as you're logged into iCloud on the web. Of course, once you have the map kit so iPhoto can display maps, well, why NOT make an app out of it?

Nothing about this article convinced me that "Mavericks is a move against the open web". Instead, I'm pretty convinced the title is just as sensationalist as the article linked at the bottom of the page: "Why did Apple name its operating system after a lethal surf spot?"

That said, a Web-based Apple maps would be lovely. I'd like to point out two things that make this whole article seem a little premature:

1. Google Earth (a desktop app) preceded Google Maps

2. Apple already had a lot of the code in place for a native maps app. I can imagine porting the iOS app to the desktop is a pretty trivial task compared to developing an entirely new Web-based solution.

This article is basically about the fact that "APPS" are coming to the desktop.

"APPS" are "applications". And before the internet, there were only "APPS"!

I'm not sure I entirely agree with the premise of this article or the narrow focus on Mavericks, but thought it might trigger an interesting discussion on where the line is drawn between web and native, and what the future holds for these competing ecosystems.

I do think it raises an interesting question - will the web ultimately supplant native apps, or do they still have something to offer consumers?

This piece is just silly. No app on an OS with 7.5% market share is going to threaten the open web. Also, when did Google Maps become open?

But if it pulls it off, it could lead to a rush of programs in the Mac App store from other developers.

Let the gold rush begin!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com