by kelthuzad | 2026-01-02 16:50:35+00:00
>Rule of the thumb is "nothing you say before 'but' matters". Apple's opposition to Chrome features is not just echoed by Mozilla. It is repeated almost verbatim.
And yet, you completely ignore all that, and go to say "well, Apple is bad, and conflict interest, so Apple must work on a better safe standard for these features". You don't even for a second assume that two of the three browser vendors oppose these features for the same reason. No. Chrome shipped them, so they absolutely must work to implement these features (in some form) because Apple bad or something.

It's absolutely insane how you keep repeating the exact same argument with no additional information like a bot who is incapable of processing new information, because you can't understand how it has been refuted several times now.

>Which literally has nothing to do with Chrome-only non-standards. Chrome wants them. It's on Chrome to design and implement them safely. Neither Apple nor Mozilla owe them anything regardless of the amount of demagoguery around their decisions. Both Apple and Safari pointed out the issues they have across many discussions. Chrome didn't care.

Your framing around this is absurd, you're the one turning a technical discussion into some team sport where you try to inflate your argument by pretending it's Google vs A&M, when it has been proven that Mozilla accepted new iterations of proposals which you yourself have admitted! This is evidence that, just because a current implementation is temporary rejected by Mozilla, it is not an eternal rejection similar to Apple, whose motivations are not guided by (faux) privacy concerns but by fear of losing their App Store dominance and revenue. You however, take this to underhandedly create anti-competitive Apple apologia, where you downplay Apple's conflict of interest by writing your own "Google vs A&M" screenplay.

>Safari has multiple issues, that's true. None of them stem from refusing to support every shitty thing that Chrome vomits into the world and calls a standard.

Wrong. That's a claim which you didn't even bother elaborating on, because if you were to elaborate, it would become clear that your claim is wrong. Your biased and shallow rhetoric is not a substitute for an actual argument.

>Speaking of "denying rival technology equal rights". Do you know that WebSQL was implemented by Chrome and had approval from Safari, but got killed due to opposition from Mozilla? Did Mozilla "deny rival technology equal rights"? Or perhaps, just perhaps, they had valid concerns that lead to rethinking of the approach?

Irrelevant and misleading. Not every single feature is directly relevant to establish equal rights for competing technologies, but when Apple realizes that it does, then they realize that it would threaten the App Store's dominance and they act accordingly. None of that diminishes Apple's conflict of interest either, but it makes clear how you're consistently arguing in bad faith to downplay Apple's conflict of interest. No matter how hard you try, you will fail. Apple makes billions from their conflict of interest, so as long as that conflict of interest exists, people have the right to make other people aware how that poisons Apple's motivations in relevant decisions.

>You can't even come up with proper rebuttal of Mozilla's and Apple's concerns (you don't even know about their concerns to begin with) beyond "but native apps" and diatribes about Apple.

Your rhetoric is so vapid and detached from reality, that it feels like I'm arguing with a LLM that loses context and forgets that I refuted your claims several times. Again, you yourself have admitted to cases where Mozilla initially refused a specific implementation, but later have accepted it. This alone debunks your whole biased narrative. Your whole rhetoric is a constant regurgitation of that single spiel, but you can simply not move on, completely incapable of processing evidence that has debunked it, that's why you fail to realize how shallow and misguided your Apple propaganda is.

>BTW here's Mozilla relenting on just one of the hardware APIs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33995022 (sadly, the twitter account has been locked)/ Original quote: "Just a day after shipping an impl to Firefox Nightly, this is the first discovered case of WebMIDI-fingerprinting... Chrome still allows web developers to enumerate attached MIDI devices without user consent or even a notification, btw."

Amazing. This is exactly what I was referring to above. I swear, you're like a bot who constantly and stubbornly regurgitates the exact same debunked arguments, regardless of how many times your talking points have been refuted.