7 ms·

I don't understand these articles that are coming out recently, and I don't want to seem like I'm attacking the people who use these tools... But, its starting

I don't understand these articles that are coming out recently, and I don't want to seem like I'm attacking the people who use these tools... But, its starting to feel like the people who want to use tools that allow them to build apps and programs that are cross-platform (NodeJS, Electronc, etc) are trying to use their weight as "the most popular programming language" to get platforms to conform to whatever they want. Why should Chromium be allowed to use private APIs that native developers already knew "should NOT be allowed" especially those coming from iOS where its known using those would simply have your app rejected. I don't have as much of an issue with Electron apps as most people do, but at some point you have to realize the short comings of cross-platform dev tools and work around them instead of trying to force everyone to just accept them.

tootie 7y ago
Cross-platform apps isn't really the point though. It's about openness. Native Android, for example, is Java. Java tools are plentiful and open source. Android dev tools work on Macs, Windows, Linux. Google also invests heavily in Chrome allowing for robust apps that don't require an app install at all. Compare that to Apple who rule the App Store with an iron fist. The don't allow native Chrome at all requiring instead that Google deploy a reskinned Safari. You can't deploy an app to a phone that you own unless you also own a Mac workstation running OS X and pay Apple $100/year for the privilege of using the very expensive hardware you bought from them. They built Swift, they built Xcode. It's total vertical integration and it's all managed at the pleasure of their bottom line.
- st3fan 7y ago
  Is that correct? Is there a Mac App Store rule that says “thou shall use WebKit” ? Do note that the point on macOS is kind of moot because it IS an open platform. Unlike iOS you do not have to use the App Store.
  - tootie 7y ago
    Yes. And it was crippled for a long while outside of Safari. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/01/new-chrome-for-ios-is-finally-as-fast-and-stable-as-safari/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/01/new-chrome-for-ios-i...
    - duskwuff 7y ago
      That's with regard to iOS, not the Mac App Store.
- dep_b 7y ago
  I don't get it. You can deploy apps when you pay both Google and Apple or you can work without a paid subscription if you are just a developer dabbling at home. The vertical integration is true but that also has been the case with Microsoft products. Google basically doesn't have it's own desktop platform until pretty recently, of course their tools ran on other desktop platforms otherwise they wouldn't have any. It's nice to install other browsers on Android though. Using Firefox wherever I can.
- zepto 7y ago
  If people want openness they can always buy Android. In fact most people do. The whole point of different platforms is that they have different characteristics. Openness is a characteristic of Android but not of Apple’s stores. This means there will be limitations on what cross-platform software can do.
- millstone 7y ago
  This strategy improves their bottom line because it enables products that users are more willing to spend money on.
- darklion 7y ago
  > and it’s all managed at the pleasure of their bottom line. As if Android’s come-one come-all is done out of benevolence. Google doesn’t have a heart, it had a bottom line too, and supporting those tools makes dollars come its way. Google HAD an opportunity to ensure that one browser engine ruled the web—-but they chose to fork WebKit into Blink, in part _because_ they didn’t want to share the work they were doing. It propped up competitors. Google would rather have a competitive—-read, monetary—-advantage than ensure web technology is widely available for all to use. For example, when Google refused to share the multi-process mode that differentiated Chrome from other browsers, it was a compelling enough security feature that Apple/WebKit reimplemented it independently so that everyone using WebKit could have it. Google proceeded to cry crocodile tears, and then promptly forked the WebKit codebase into Blink. They claimed it was necessary to avoid having to carry around two multi-process models, but it was a A PROBLEM OF THEIR OWN MAKING. So don’t imply Apple is profiteering, as if other companies are trying to give you hugs. Everybody’s finding cash in the ways that play to their strengths. If Google was really interested in pushing the web forward, they’d swallow their pride, take the bottom line hit, and merge Blink back into WebKit.
  - soperj 7y ago
    > Google HAD an opportunity to ensure that one browser engine ruled the web—-but they chose to fork WebKit into Blink, in part _because_ they didn’t want to share the work they were doing. Apple had the same choice when it forked KHTML to produce Webkit.
    - darklion 7y ago
      KHTML wasn’t anywhere near the same position as WebKit when Apple forked it. At the time, KHTML was niche beyond its use in KDE. When Google forked WebKit, Safari and Chrome combined were something like 40% of the market.
      - soperj 7y ago
        so? Chrome was clearly the leader. Apple should have moved to their fork then if anything.
- st3fan 7y ago
  This whole storm about macOS. Which is an extremely open platform. You can develop apps with amazing tools by Apple or you can do C, C++, Ruby, Java, Electron you name it. You don’t even have to pay anyone money to build an app and share it. There are a lot of misconceptions in this thread and claiming that macOS is not open is really the biggest IMO.
  - lonelappde 7y ago
    The OP is literally about Apple locking down a Mac API.
    - jachee 7y ago
      But only for App Store apps. The platform is still wide open for non-App-Store development.
- jsjohnst 7y ago
  > You can't deploy an app to a phone that you own unless you also own a Mac workstation running OS X and pay Apple $100/year for the privilege of using the very expensive hardware you bought from them. This hasn’t been true for a while now.
burtonator 7y ago
> Why should Chromium be allowed to use private APIs that native developers already knew "should NOT be allowed" especially those coming from iOS where its known using those would simply have your app rejected. Why should apple apps like Safari be allowed to use private APIs if they're not allowed? This is blatantly non-competitive. Also, they sit on these APIs for YEARS with no alternative.
- hqrlk 7y ago
  Because they are not a monopoly so those laws don't apply to them.
  - st3fan 7y ago
    This has never been a good argument if you look at what happens inside an ecosystem owned by a trillion dollar business.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      So in that case the Amazon Fire tablet is a “monopoly” since it’s owned by a 1 trillion dollar company....
  - jsjohnst 7y ago
    You do not have to be a monopoly to be in violation of anti-competitive business practice regulations.
- shuckles 7y ago
  Because you don’t pay Apple to perform the necessary engineering investment to expose SPI as API. And the people who do pay Apple don’t care about this.
  - lonelappde 7y ago
    Where is the price sheet for the SPIs Electron is using?
- 7y ago
k__ 7y ago
> use their weight as "the most popular programming language" to get platforms to conform to whatever they want I'd rather have an open committee tell a big corp what they have to do than the other way around.
- blub 7y ago
  JavaScript's tribe is more accurately represented as a swarm, not a committee. They are unable to tell anyone what to do.
  - k__ 7y ago
    I was thinking about tc39 and the open js foundation.
- monocularvision 7y ago
  The idea that all of the web is designed by an open committee is laughable. How much of the web is simply controlled now by Google doing whatever is wants in Chrome?

tootie 7y ago

Cross-platform apps isn't really the point though. It's about openness. Native Android, for example, is Java. Java tools are plentiful and open source. Android dev tools work on Macs, Windows, Linux. Google also invests heavily in Chrome allowing for robust apps that don't require an app install at all. Compare that to Apple who rule the App Store with an iron fist. The don't allow native Chrome at all requiring instead that Google deploy a reskinned Safari. You can't deploy an app to a phone that you own unless you also own a Mac workstation running OS X and pay Apple $100/year for the privilege of using the very expensive hardware you bought from them. They built Swift, they built Xcode. It's total vertical integration and it's all managed at the pleasure of their bottom line.

st3fan 7y ago
Is that correct? Is there a Mac App Store rule that says “thou shall use WebKit” ? Do note that the point on macOS is kind of moot because it IS an open platform. Unlike iOS you do not have to use the App Store.
- tootie 7y ago
  Yes. And it was crippled for a long while outside of Safari. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/01/new-chrome-for-ios-is-finally-as-fast-and-stable-as-safari/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/01/new-chrome-for-ios-i...
  - duskwuff 7y ago
    That's with regard to iOS, not the Mac App Store.
dep_b 7y ago
I don't get it. You can deploy apps when you pay both Google and Apple or you can work without a paid subscription if you are just a developer dabbling at home. The vertical integration is true but that also has been the case with Microsoft products. Google basically doesn't have it's own desktop platform until pretty recently, of course their tools ran on other desktop platforms otherwise they wouldn't have any. It's nice to install other browsers on Android though. Using Firefox wherever I can.
zepto 7y ago
If people want openness they can always buy Android. In fact most people do. The whole point of different platforms is that they have different characteristics. Openness is a characteristic of Android but not of Apple’s stores. This means there will be limitations on what cross-platform software can do.
millstone 7y ago
This strategy improves their bottom line because it enables products that users are more willing to spend money on.
darklion 7y ago
> and it’s all managed at the pleasure of their bottom line. As if Android’s come-one come-all is done out of benevolence. Google doesn’t have a heart, it had a bottom line too, and supporting those tools makes dollars come its way. Google HAD an opportunity to ensure that one browser engine ruled the web—-but they chose to fork WebKit into Blink, in part _because_ they didn’t want to share the work they were doing. It propped up competitors. Google would rather have a competitive—-read, monetary—-advantage than ensure web technology is widely available for all to use. For example, when Google refused to share the multi-process mode that differentiated Chrome from other browsers, it was a compelling enough security feature that Apple/WebKit reimplemented it independently so that everyone using WebKit could have it. Google proceeded to cry crocodile tears, and then promptly forked the WebKit codebase into Blink. They claimed it was necessary to avoid having to carry around two multi-process models, but it was a A PROBLEM OF THEIR OWN MAKING. So don’t imply Apple is profiteering, as if other companies are trying to give you hugs. Everybody’s finding cash in the ways that play to their strengths. If Google was really interested in pushing the web forward, they’d swallow their pride, take the bottom line hit, and merge Blink back into WebKit.
- soperj 7y ago
  > Google HAD an opportunity to ensure that one browser engine ruled the web—-but they chose to fork WebKit into Blink, in part _because_ they didn’t want to share the work they were doing. Apple had the same choice when it forked KHTML to produce Webkit.
  - darklion 7y ago
    KHTML wasn’t anywhere near the same position as WebKit when Apple forked it. At the time, KHTML was niche beyond its use in KDE. When Google forked WebKit, Safari and Chrome combined were something like 40% of the market.
    - soperj 7y ago
      so? Chrome was clearly the leader. Apple should have moved to their fork then if anything.
st3fan 7y ago
This whole storm about macOS. Which is an extremely open platform. You can develop apps with amazing tools by Apple or you can do C, C++, Ruby, Java, Electron you name it. You don’t even have to pay anyone money to build an app and share it. There are a lot of misconceptions in this thread and claiming that macOS is not open is really the biggest IMO.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  The OP is literally about Apple locking down a Mac API.
  - jachee 7y ago
    But only for App Store apps. The platform is still wide open for non-App-Store development.
jsjohnst 7y ago
> You can't deploy an app to a phone that you own unless you also own a Mac workstation running OS X and pay Apple $100/year for the privilege of using the very expensive hardware you bought from them. This hasn’t been true for a while now.

burtonator 7y ago

> Why should Chromium be allowed to use private APIs that native developers already knew "should NOT be allowed" especially those coming from iOS where its known using those would simply have your app rejected. Why should apple apps like Safari be allowed to use private APIs if they're not allowed? This is blatantly non-competitive. Also, they sit on these APIs for YEARS with no alternative.

hqrlk 7y ago
Because they are not a monopoly so those laws don't apply to them.
- st3fan 7y ago
  This has never been a good argument if you look at what happens inside an ecosystem owned by a trillion dollar business.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    So in that case the Amazon Fire tablet is a “monopoly” since it’s owned by a 1 trillion dollar company....
- jsjohnst 7y ago
  You do not have to be a monopoly to be in violation of anti-competitive business practice regulations.
shuckles 7y ago
Because you don’t pay Apple to perform the necessary engineering investment to expose SPI as API. And the people who do pay Apple don’t care about this.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  Where is the price sheet for the SPIs Electron is using?
7y ago

k__ 7y ago

> use their weight as "the most popular programming language" to get platforms to conform to whatever they want I'd rather have an open committee tell a big corp what they have to do than the other way around.

blub 7y ago
JavaScript's tribe is more accurately represented as a swarm, not a committee. They are unable to tell anyone what to do.
- k__ 7y ago
  I was thinking about tc39 and the open js foundation.
monocularvision 7y ago
The idea that all of the web is designed by an open committee is laughable. How much of the web is simply controlled now by Google doing whatever is wants in Chrome?