TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Progress Delayed Is Progress Denied

11 点作者 markdog12大约 4 年前

4 条评论

dfabulich大约 4 年前
The most important point in this article is that just two small changes to Apple&#x27;s rules would radically improve support for web apps on iOS.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;developer.apple.com&#x2F;app-store&#x2F;review&#x2F;guidelines&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;developer.apple.com&#x2F;app-store&#x2F;review&#x2F;guidelines&#x2F;</a><p>1. Rule 2.5.6: &quot;Apps that browse the web must use the appropriate WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript.&quot;<p>Chrome for iOS is not real Chrome; Firefox for iOS is not real Firefox. Chrome&#x2F;Firefox for iOS are just UI skins around WebKit, Safari&#x27;s browser engine. They&#x27;re not allowed to ship Blink&#x2F;Gecko for iOS.<p>If Apple would just remove rule 2.5.6, Google and Mozilla could ship real Chrome and real Firefox, allowing users to choose their own browser on their own terms.<p>Users could switch from Safari to Chrome to workaround Safari&#x27;s many bugs (documented here in TFA). Safari would have to fund the work to fix those bugs to compete. Safari would have to be better, or at least good enough, to compete.<p>iOS users are stuck on IE, even if they switch to &quot;Firefox,&quot; and that just sucks.<p>2. Rule 4.2.2: &quot;Other than catalogs, apps shouldn’t primarily be marketing materials, advertisements, web clippings, content aggregators, or a collection of links.&quot;<p>This rule forbids web apps in the App Store. If you try to package up a web app with a minimal iOS Swift wrapper, Apple <i>might</i> approve it, if they fail to notice what you&#x27;re doing, but they&#x27;ll typically reject it, claiming that your app is a &quot;web clipping&quot; under rule 4.2.2.<p>I&#x27;ll bet you&#x27;ve never heard of a &quot;web clipping,&quot; but the idea is that you can&#x27;t have an app that&#x27;s &quot;just&quot; a copy of a web page. But what if the web page is a web app, full of features? No matter. If your app is nothing but a wrapper for your web site, that&#x27;s a &quot;web clipping,&quot; and Apple can and will reject your app for that.<p>(Whenever anyone mentions this, someone pipes up to say, &quot;Huh? This must be wrong. I submitted a web app with a minimal wrapper and Apple approved it.&quot; Lucky you that they didn&#x27;t catch you, but each time you push an app update, you run the risk that Apple will notice the problem <i>next</i> time.)<p>Two little rules. Apple really, <i>really</i> ought to fix this.
评论 #27001876 未加载
ShinyNewFeature大约 4 年前
As a user, I think what&#x27;s holding back web is not the lack of APIs but how much web and browsers have repeatedly ignored user preferences, and optimized for tracking and ads.<p>Go to any news website and it contains tons of trackers trying to fingerprint you. Then, of course, they also have to show you tons of ads leaving at most 30% of the viewport to read any content. The web is user-hostile.<p>And the leading browser (i.e., Chrome) has not really done anything to solve this problem. While Safari had cache partitioning enabled for 5+ years, Chrome has still to deliver it to users even though it&#x27;s a clear privacy and security win. Not just that, Chrome repeatedly keeps making decisions that hurt user&#x27;s privacy and expectations [1][2][3][4].<p>One simple rule of thumb that I use to compare Safari and Chrome is that Safari cares about users (privacy, gating out APIs that have risk of being misued for fingerprinting), while Chrome cares about web developers (trackers, ads, More powerful APIs). As a user, my expectations align better with the former model. I would be happy if Chrome took a step back, acknowledge user&#x27;s expectations and focus on progressing the privacy on the web instead of engaging in twitter wars.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=22236106" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=22236106</a> [2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=24817304" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=24817304</a> [3] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=25337995" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=25337995</a> [4] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;web.dev&#x2F;floc&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;web.dev&#x2F;floc&#x2F;</a>
dmitriid大约 4 年前
As often happens, Alex Russel pushes an agenda. And that agenda is, invariably, &quot;Apple bad, Safari bad, put Chrome on iOS&quot;.<p>1. All charts on the page, except one, are doctored to show greater disparity than there is. No charts except one start from zero.<p>Example:<p>&quot;In line with Web Platform Tests data, Chromium and Firefox implement more features and deliver them to market more steadily. From this data, we see that iOS is the least complete and competitive implementation of the web platform, and the gap is growing&quot;<p>Reality: the chart starts at 4 800 and ends at 7 600<p>- Chrome implements ~7 600 APIs<p>- Firefox implements ~6400 APIs<p>- Safari implements ~6200 APIs<p>Not that bad, is it? Moreover, if you look at the <i>trends</i>, Firefox and Safari <i>converge</i> whereas Chrome is running away.<p><i>And the reason</i> for Chrome running away is, at least in part, is in the next item on the list:<p>2. Chrome rams through &quot;standards&quot; implemented by, and implemented for Chrome regardless of any objections from other browser vendors. Note the plural in vendors.<p>This website lists just a sample of APIs that <i>both Safari and Firefox</i> consider <i>harmful</i> and will not implement them at all: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;webapicontroversy.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;webapicontroversy.com&#x2F;</a> Chrome ships them, of course.
pier25大约 4 年前
Thanks Alex for documenting and writing this.<p>I&#x27;m sure we&#x27;ve all suspected this, but seeing all those graphs was a real punch in the gut.