This is not simply about HTML5, is it? It is about progressive web apps: They look and act exactly the same as a native app on your iDevice. The difference is that they don't need an App store. You simply download them from the web and use them offline. They're written in simple HTML5, CSS and vanilla JavaScript.
Progressive web apps are the future of the web on mobile. I hope Apple recognizes this, and turn the iPhone into a true Internet Communicator.
Have a look at this video here. It is a Mozilla talk Chris Wilson did a couple of weeks ago:
Apple tried it with iPhone 1.0. Developers railed on Apple because they couldn't have native apps. Apple added a native appstore. Developers complained about the restrictions on that. Can't please developers at all.
Will they pay the additional overhead to Apple for supporting these APIs. Apple doesn't do this type of stuff because they feel like it, it's genuinely more expensive and resource intensive to support. So they're suing Apple to save their costs and push them on to Apple.
It's not the overheads that's the problem it's the security issues allowing other rendering engines opens up. Do you really want to trust Google with their Chrome rendering engine on your iPhone? It's dicey enough on the macOS platform let alone Windows and Linux.
About bloody time someone booted Apple in the rear over this matter. Back when SJ was flagellating Adobe Flash he said Mac OSX would be the go-to platform for HTML5. What little we have seen of it implemented over the past half decade is an embarrassment to both the memory of Steve Jobs and Apple's customers.
Same story with OpenGL (another tech Apple has refused to engage with). This results in games forced to run inside Wine (which is a joke) because DX has more working features than Apples sorry excuse for a Graphics API.
Really, who can blame them when they build cheap, barely adequate and dated hardware for their Pro computers and abysmal hardware for their consumer models. Games really struggle on Mac Hardware. Barely an AAA titled game will run on "Ultra" settings at above a constant 30fps.
Apple's efforts with HTML5 have been hampered by W3C who can't make their mind up what to put into the standard. W3C seem more intent on caving to Google or Mozilla rather than asking whether or not the implementations are worth it in the first place.
Macs have supported OpenGL since day one but they suffer the same problem as the W3C whereby they have to wait until Kronos make up their mind what they want to support. Apple developed Metal to give us OpenGL without waiting for Kronos.
When it comes to hardware Apple is ONCE AGAIN at the mercy of the hardware manufacturers. Apple has to wait until freaking Intel makes up their mind what they are going to do with their CPUs. Incidentally they largely just end up being incremental speed increases rather than exciting new technology. Why do you think Apple designed their own chips?
The speed decreases by running on macOS hardware is NOT, I repeat, NOT Apple's fault. Time and time again when a games company has ported an OpenGL title to Macs it has run faster on the Mac than the Windows PC. However, MOST games these days DO NOT RUN OpenGL (another reason Apple hasn't gone out of their way to go full on with OpenGL). Most games run DirectX which IS NOT available on macOS or iOS. As such they HAVE to be run in a Wine or Cider wrapper and as such HAVE to have a performance hit. THE HARDWARE IS NOT THE PROBLEM THE DEVELOPERS ARE.
This is typical behavior of socialists. They feel like they deserve something so they sic the government on people and companies to force them at gunpoint to pay more in taxes or follow certain laws to create in their minds an "even" playing field rather than compete
Your grasp on socialism deserves the most ignorant post of the day award. Let me guess. American?
This is not simply about HTML5, is it? It is about progressive web apps: They look and act exactly the same as a native app on your iDevice. The difference is that they don't need an App store. You simply download them from the web and use them offline. They're written in simple HTML5, CSS and vanilla JavaScript.
Progressive web apps are the future of the web on mobile. I hope Apple recognizes this, and turn the iPhone into a true Internet Communicator.
Have a look at this video here. It is a Mozilla talk Chris Wilson did a couple of weeks ago:
Anything that uses a parser vs compiler as a baseline technology is already inherently inferior. That's ignoring broken standards and largely fragmented toolsets alongside performance and security. The web world with it's current technology stack is leaps and bounds inferior to native application development. There's a reason a first class application is typically native. You are beyond wrong on this. The future will hopefully be distributable and fragmentable binaries that compile natively rather get parsed.
You mean interpreted not parsed, when you compile parsing is the first step (actually tokenizing is but alas) and that's the same for an interpreter.
Apple's efforts with HTML5 have been hampered by W3C who can't make their mind up what to put into the standard. W3C seem more intent on caving to Google or Mozilla rather than asking whether or not the implementations are worth it in the first place.
Macs have supported OpenGL since day one but they suffer the same problem as the W3C whereby they have to wait until Kronos make up their mind what they want to support. Apple developed Metal to give us OpenGL without waiting for Kronos.
When it comes to hardware Apple is ONCE AGAIN at the mercy of the hardware manufacturers. Apple has to wait until freaking Intel makes up their mind what they are going to do with their CPUs. Incidentally they largely just end up being incremental speed increases rather than exciting new technology. Why do you think Apple designed their own chips?
The speed decreases by running on macOS hardware is NOT, I repeat, NOT Apple's fault. Time and time again when a games company has ported an OpenGL title to Macs it has run faster on the Mac than the Windows PC. However, MOST games these days DO NOT RUN OpenGL (another reason Apple hasn't gone out of their way to go full on with OpenGL). Most games run DirectX which IS NOT available on macOS or iOS. As such they HAVE to be run in a Wine or Cider wrapper and as such HAVE to have a performance hit. THE HARDWARE IS NOT THE PROBLEM THE DEVELOPERS ARE.
Not entirely true, Apple doesn't support the latest OpenGL for example so that isn't a problem caused by developers, also graphics drivers were in the past not on par with Windows and several OS characteristics caused (delay) problems (repeatedly Apple claimed improving this). Your right about the waiting game, especially W3C, but it is reasonable I think to stay current with standards as is and not to lack behind. I do hope Apple has the balls to kick Intel out and start using its excellent A10 (and so on) processors/GPUs/DSPs/etc across the line.
Apple's efforts with HTML5 have been hampered by W3C who can't make their mind up what to put into the standard. W3C seem more intent on caving to Google or Mozilla rather than asking whether or not the implementations are worth it in the first place.
Macs have supported OpenGL since day one but they suffer the same problem as the W3C whereby they have to wait until Kronos make up their mind what they want to support. Apple developed Metal to give us OpenGL without waiting for Kronos.
When it comes to hardware Apple is ONCE AGAIN at the mercy of the hardware manufacturers. Apple has to wait until freaking Intel makes up their mind what they are going to do with their CPUs. Incidentally they largely just end up being incremental speed increases rather than exciting new technology. Why do you think Apple designed their own chips?
The speed decreases by running on macOS hardware is NOT, I repeat, NOT Apple's fault. Time and time again when a games company has ported an OpenGL title to Macs it has run faster on the Mac than the Windows PC. However, MOST games these days DO NOT RUN OpenGL (another reason Apple hasn't gone out of their way to go full on with OpenGL). Most games run DirectX which IS NOT available on macOS or iOS. As such they HAVE to be run in a Wine or Cider wrapper and as such HAVE to have a performance hit. THE HARDWARE IS NOT THE PROBLEM THE DEVELOPERS ARE.
A question : I'm not an expert infact I know nothing about coding this will probably sound very bumb but I dont care this' been bothering me for while and I cant figure it out, I was thinking is Apple's dependence on intel's chips because of the x86 instruction set ? which pretty much runs the world and intel entirely owns ?
Is the problem of Apple going full custom ARM on their higher performance hardware like iMac large softwear penetration of the x86 standard ? that if Apple ditched intel chips, unacceptably lage amounts of softwear would be incompatible with the Mac thus hurting users ?
I'm guessing there are also lots of minor hardware that function on x86 code but the iPhone does almost everything the iMac does be it on a limited terms. But if the issue is inconsivably large conversions effots of staple softwer to run on more efficient and modern ARM chips then is that impossible for Apple ?
I was thinking what Apple could do to be less depended on an outsider for CPU and thought hey!!! they should buy intel but then thought why bother just make you're own chips I mean intell would cost a pretty penny with a tenth of that money Apple could open coding companies around the world to wright the extensive coding of all the essential staff to begin with once it's done and all the whining has died down and everybody has accepted that this is the future adoption might take hold.
Imagine: S-series [32 bit] (apple watch etc) A and AX-series [64 bit] (iPhone and iPad/pro) K and KX- series [128 bit] (iMac, MacBook etc) all custom ARM Apple designed architecture
I know I'm probably talking rubbish but any simple elaborations and clarifications would be much appricieterd.
thanks
... Seems like a reach to me. Are ALL provisions in the developer license agreement up for grabs just because Apple is big and developers are small? ...
Let's say I wrote and published a brand new browser that didn't support HTML5 to Nexendi's satisfaction. Would I get sued by Nexendi? Hardly likely.
Apple is being sued because they have deep pockets. It's a symptom of the relative helplessness of European tech companies. If you can't out-innovate, your only move is to out-litigate.
Apple is sued because the only allowed rendering engine in iOS does not longer follow the (evolving) HTML5 standards. Read the claim from Nexedi: they want to reduce their development costs, they don't ask money from Apple.
It should be noted that before Apple opened the app store on iOS, Apple was pro-actively pushing the HTML5 standard, because it was the only way for developers to interact with the iPhone. Remember when Steve Jobs was fulminating against Flash, he clearly stated that the only way forward for the web was HTML5
Once the app store model was released, there was a new way of developing for iPhone, a way that was much more controlled and liked by Apple. As such Apple lost gradually interest in supporting the new evolutions in HTML5. The fact that Apple gets 30% of the revenue of native apps while 0% for web apps is definitely playing a role.
Currently website builders have to take extra effort to make their sites being viewed correctly in Safari (MacOS and iOS). A little bit like the support for Internet Explorer in the 2000 -2010 time frame. And that is waste of valuable resources. So I have some sympathy for Nexedi to make the issue visible.
Nevertheless despite the fact that Apple lost interest in HTML5, I don't think that Nexendi has a fighting chance.
If the French lawsuit prevails, then there will be precedent and I can sue Apple to force them to support 2-up page views in Pages. And then I'll sue Microsoft to support iCloud natively in Outlook. And then... this could go on forever.
Not entirely true, Apple doesn't support the latest OpenGL for example so that isn't a problem caused by developers, also graphics drivers were in the past not on par with Windows and several OS characteristics caused (delay) problems (repeatedly Apple claimed improving this).
Your right about the waiting game, especially W3C, but it is reasonable I think to stay current with standards as is and not to lack behind. I do hope Apple has the balls to kick Intel out and start using its excellent A10 (and so on) processors/GPUs/DSPs/etc across the line.
But does the latest spec actually add anything advantageous over and above bug fixes etc? Is it worth it for Apple to spend resources upgrading to the latest version if doing so takes time away from making Metal better? It might seem reasonable to do so but the current latest version is NOT the latest proposed specs which has LOTS of cool features.
A question : I'm not an expert infact I know nothing about coding this will probably sound very bumb but I dont care this' been bothering me for while and I cant figure it out, I was thinking is Apple's dependence on intel's chips because of the x86 instruction set ? which pretty much runs the world and intel entirely owns ?
Is the problem of Apple going full custom ARM on their higher performance hardware like iMac large softwear penetration of the x86 standard ? that if Apple ditched intel chips, unacceptably lage amounts of softwear would be incompatible with the Mac thus hurting users ?
I'm guessing there are also lots of minor hardware that function on x86 code but the iPhone does almost everything the iMac does be it on a limited terms. But if the issue is inconsivably large conversions effots of staple softwer to run on more efficient and modern ARM chips then is that impossible for Apple ?
I was thinking what Apple could do to be less depended on an outsider for CPU and thought hey!!! they should buy intel but then thought why bother just make you're own chips I mean intell would cost a pretty penny with a tenth of that money Apple could open coding companies around the world to wright the extensive coding of all the essential staff to begin with once it's done and all the whining has died down and everybody has accepted that this is the future adoption might take hold.
Imagine: S-series [32 bit] (apple watch etc) A and AX-series [64 bit] (iPhone and iPad/pro) K and KX- series [128 bit] (iMac, MacBook etc) all custom ARM Apple designed architecture
I know I'm probably talking rubbish but any simple elaborations and clarifications would be much appricieterd.
thanks
It currently would be a MASSIVE step backwards going back to Motorola 68000 days. My understanding is that the ARM processor has no Intel code in it (PPC processors did) so to get apps like Wine or Parallels or VMWare etc to work would mean going back to emulator days and in doing so would make the software pretty much useable for the tasks at hand.
It would also hamper game porting and return us to the days where developers would be too lazy to port their games over to the Mac because of the development time required. Apple NEEDS to stick to the Intel processors on the desktops and laptops.
... Seems like a reach to me. Are ALL provisions in the developer license agreement up for grabs just because Apple is big and developers are small? ...
Let's say I wrote and published a brand new browser that didn't support HTML5 to Nexendi's satisfaction. Would I get sued by Nexendi? Hardly likely.
Apple is being sued because they have deep pockets. It's a symptom of the relative helplessness of European tech companies. If you can't out-innovate, your only move is to out-litigate.
Apple is sued because the only allowed rendering engine in iOS does not longer follow the (evolving) HTML5 standards. Read the claim from Nexedi: they want to reduce their development costs, they don't ask money from Apple.
It should be noted that before Apple opened the app store on iOS, Apple was pro-actively pushing the HTML5 standard, because it was the only way for developers to interact with the iPhone. Remember when Steve Jobs was fulminating against Flash, he clearly stated that the only way forward for the web was HTML5
Once the app store model was released, there was a new way of developing for iPhone, a way that was much more controlled and liked by Apple. As such Apple lost gradually interest in supporting the new evolutions in HTML5. The fact that Apple gets 30% of the revenue of native apps while 0% for web apps is definitely playing a role.
Currently website builders have to take extra effort to make their sites being viewed correctly in Safari (MacOS and iOS). A little bit like the support for Internet Explorer in the 2000 -2010 time frame. And that is waste of valuable resources. So I have some sympathy for Nexedi to make the issue visible.
Nevertheless despite the fact that Apple lost interest in HTML5, I don't think that Nexendi has a fighting chance.
Apple is part of the board developing HTML5. The problem is that the W3C is getting distracted by Google and Microsoft etc pushing their standards and Apple pushing theirs. The funny thing is that Apple's standards are actually better in many ways but they find it hard to get them pushed because Google and Microsoft and others vote to not support that way in favour of their way. This of course now means there's three ways to do the same thing and currently none of them are ratified. As such this case is a pipe dream because the so called HTML5 spec still is nowhere close to being complete.
If you look at Safari on the HTML5test ( https://html5test.com ) site you'll notice that most of what Apple doesn't support is stuff introduced above and beyond the original HTML5 specs and are mostly double up stuff. Why does anyone need to support WebM or OGG Vorbis when years ago HTML5 settled on MP4 as a single standard? As such you now have to support other features to get OGG and WebM to do what is already part of the MP4 specs anyway.
So this developer refuses to support MP4 or now has to include MP4 files so that iOS and macOS is supported when if they actually just used MP4 in the first place their development costs would be reduced anyway.
The lack of understanding displayed by people here is astonishing. Apple dropped the ball on Safari once they (thankfully!) tanked Flash, and Explorer went the way of the Dodo. While they were competing for mindshare, they were constantly near the top of standard compliance. Jobs even argued for web apps, which tanked due to limitations in ios's Safari (limited number of tabs, etc.) which no longer apply. Just the dozens of various store apps I have do download and install on the phone, cluttering up the phone, shows that most apps would better be web apps.
But this isn't what this is about. Just as yesteryear people rightfully complained about M$ integrating Explorer into Windows in a way that killed competition in the browser market and made it difficult for e.g. people with a Mac to access e.g. banking sites; Apple now (ab)uses its power on the dominant iOS platform to not just preinstall and integrate WebKit/Safari with the system, but contractually prohibit third party browsers.
A company that requires certain HTML5 features can't just redirect users to a different browser, but has to spend a lot of time and money to develop around Apple's deficient standards implementation.
What's at issue here is the PROHIBITION of third party browsers, which is a contract clause that Apple imposes without the ability of a third party to negotiate the contract.
A question : I'm not an expert infact I know nothing about coding this will probably sound very bumb but I dont care this' been bothering me for while and I cant figure it out, I was thinking is Apple's dependence on intel's chips because of the x86 instruction set ? which pretty much runs the world and intel entirely owns ?
Is the problem of Apple going full custom ARM on their higher performance hardware like iMac large softwear penetration of the x86 standard ? that if Apple ditched intel chips, unacceptably lage amounts of softwear would be incompatible with the Mac thus hurting users ?
I'm guessing there are also lots of minor hardware that function on x86 code but the iPhone does almost everything the iMac does be it on a limited terms. But if the issue is inconsivably large conversions effots of staple softwer to run on more efficient and modern ARM chips then is that impossible for Apple ?
I was thinking what Apple could do to be less depended on an outsider for CPU and thought hey!!! they should buy intel but then thought why bother just make you're own chips I mean intell would cost a pretty penny with a tenth of that money Apple could open coding companies around the world to wright the extensive coding of all the essential staff to begin with once it's done and all the whining has died down and everybody has accepted that this is the future adoption might take hold.
Imagine: S-series [32 bit] (apple watch etc) A and AX-series [64 bit] (iPhone and iPad/pro) K and KX- series [128 bit] (iMac, MacBook etc) all custom ARM Apple designed architecture
I know I'm probably talking rubbish but any simple elaborations and clarifications would be much appricieterd.
thanks
It currently would be a MASSIVE step backwards going back to Motorola 68000 days. My understanding is that the ARM processor has no Intel code in it (PPC processors did) so to get apps like Wine or Parallels or VMWare etc to work would mean going back to emulator days and in doing so would make the software pretty much useable for the tasks at hand.
It would also hamper game porting and return us to the days where developers would be too lazy to port their games over to the Mac because of the development time required. Apple NEEDS to stick to the Intel processors on the desktops and laptops.
I get what you're saying but what I'm getting at is a complete start over as in creat ARM versions of all those software you mentioned from scratch no intel crap whatsoever, is the iPad pro not damn near desktop class ? as a platform couldn't it some day provide similar performance for native software, couldn't all of windows 10 be recoded from scratch to run natively not "emulated" on an ARM chip ?
If you look at Safari on the HTML5test ( https://html5test.com ) site you'll notice that most of what Apple doesn't support is stuff introduced above and beyond the original HTML5 specs and are mostly double up stuff. Why does anyone need to support WebM or OGG Vorbis when years ago HTML5 settled on MP4 as a single standard? As such you now have to support other features to get OGG and WebM to do what is already part of the MP4 specs anyway.
So this developer refuses to support MP4 or now has to include MP4 files so that iOS and macOS is supported when if they actually just used MP4 in the first place their development costs would be reduced anyway.
The main issue is not in the support of some audio or video codec because there one has always an alternative like H264 for video or mp3 for audio.
Unsupported APIs are the key issue: web notifications, CSS3 cursors, battery status. vibration, media source extensions, autofocus, keyboardevent, beacons, download attribute, text encoding + decoding, ... As a web developer you either have to weaken the user experience or to develop around it (using ugly polyfills if available).
The HTML5 standard is a evolving standard, so the original specs are getting outdated. Safari 6 was in 2012 one of the best in terms of compliance, now Safari is the worst in class. The interest of Apple to keep Safari compliant to the actual status of HTML5 has been very low and that is deplorable.
This is not simply about HTML5, is it? It is about progressive web apps: They look and act exactly the same as a native app on your iDevice. The difference is that they don't need an App store. You simply download them from the web and use them offline. They're written in simple HTML5, CSS and vanilla JavaScript.
Progressive web apps are the future of the web on mobile. I hope Apple recognizes this, and turn the iPhone into a true Internet Communicator.
Have a look at this video here. It is a Mozilla talk Chris Wilson did a couple of weeks ago:
Anything that uses a parser vs compiler as a baseline technology is already inherently inferior. That's ignoring broken standards and largely fragmented toolsets alongside performance and security. The web world with it's current technology stack is leaps and bounds inferior to native application development. There's a reason a first class application is typically native. You are beyond wrong on this. The future will hopefully be distributable and fragmentable binaries that compile natively rather get parsed.
They'll never go near OpenDoc ever. Such a shame. It was years ahead of its time and had limitless possibilities.
Jobs didn't think so. and looking back and saying it woulda been great is a human flaw -- rose colored glssses. it ignores the problems and challenges and failures associated with an endeavor -- any endeavor. ideas are easy. implementations are hard.
I don't think anyone cares much about webm in Safari...
In in fact I will go so far as to say many of Apples core apps are not being updated and improved in a timely manner. IWorks, Safari and a bunch of other Apple basics seem to be forgotten by Apple management. So while i hate to see this lawsuit be successful I do see a need to Apple to get off its ass and brings some craftsmanship back to their software suite.
the same iworks they demoed updates to at the iphone event? the same safari that just got a new release? these are the apps not being updated?
If you look at Safari on the HTML5test ( https://html5test.com ) site you'll notice that most of what Apple doesn't support is stuff introduced above and beyond the original HTML5 specs and are mostly double up stuff. Why does anyone need to support WebM or OGG Vorbis when years ago HTML5 settled on MP4 as a single standard? As such you now have to support other features to get OGG and WebM to do what is already part of the MP4 specs anyway.
So this developer refuses to support MP4 or now has to include MP4 files so that iOS and macOS is supported when if they actually just used MP4 in the first place their development costs would be reduced anyway.
The main issue is not in the support of some audio or video codec because there one has always an alternative like H264 for video or mp3 for audio.
Unsupported APIs are the key issue: web notifications, CSS3 cursors, battery status. vibration, media source extensions, autofocus, keyboardevent, beacons, download attribute, text encoding + decoding, ... As a web developer you either have to weaken the user experience or to develop around it (using ugly polyfills if available).
The HTML5 standard is a evolving standard, so the original specs are getting outdated. Safari 6 was in 2012 one of the best in terms of compliance, now Safari is the worst in class. The interest of Apple to keep Safari compliant to the actual status of HTML5 has been very low and that is deplorable.
But that stuff does NOT add to the experience of webpages. Why do you need vibrations or battery status in a webpage when that stuff is handled by the OS anyway? The only part of the HTML5 spec that I wish Apple supported is the Input type tags like tel, date and time etc because they are useful. They're supported in iOS Safari but not macOS Safari.
Apple mostly supports the HTML5 specifications that make sense but much of the specifications DON'T make sense. Apple does support web notifications because Apple Insider keeps notifying me of new articles. Media extension support IS supported (at least in Safari 10). I'm not sure what you mean by text encoding/decoding but that doesn't even seem to be part of the specs (at least it's not tested for in the above mentioned test).
Everything else is supported by Apple not in the browser but in the OS because that's where it makes SENSE to put it.
A question : I'm not an expert infact I know nothing about coding this will probably sound very bumb but I dont care this' been bothering me for while and I cant figure it out, I was thinking is Apple's dependence on intel's chips because of the x86 instruction set ? which pretty much runs the world and intel entirely owns ?
Is the problem of Apple going full custom ARM on their higher performance hardware like iMac large softwear penetration of the x86 standard ? that if Apple ditched intel chips, unacceptably lage amounts of softwear would be incompatible with the Mac thus hurting users ?
I'm guessing there are also lots of minor hardware that function on x86 code but the iPhone does almost everything the iMac does be it on a limited terms. But if the issue is inconsivably large conversions effots of staple softwer to run on more efficient and modern ARM chips then is that impossible for Apple ?
I was thinking what Apple could do to be less depended on an outsider for CPU and thought hey!!! they should buy intel but then thought why bother just make you're own chips I mean intell would cost a pretty penny with a tenth of that money Apple could open coding companies around the world to wright the extensive coding of all the essential staff to begin with once it's done and all the whining has died down and everybody has accepted that this is the future adoption might take hold.
Imagine: S-series [32 bit] (apple watch etc) A and AX-series [64 bit] (iPhone and iPad/pro) K and KX- series [128 bit] (iMac, MacBook etc) all custom ARM Apple designed architecture
I know I'm probably talking rubbish but any simple elaborations and clarifications would be much appricieterd.
thanks
It currently would be a MASSIVE step backwards going back to Motorola 68000 days. My understanding is that the ARM processor has no Intel code in it (PPC processors did) so to get apps like Wine or Parallels or VMWare etc to work would mean going back to emulator days and in doing so would make the software pretty much useable for the tasks at hand.
It would also hamper game porting and return us to the days where developers would be too lazy to port their games over to the Mac because of the development time required. Apple NEEDS to stick to the Intel processors on the desktops and laptops.
I get what you're saying but what I'm getting at is a complete start over as in creat ARM versions of all those software you mentioned from scratch no intel crap whatsoever, is the iPad pro not damn near desktop class ? as a platform couldn't it some day provide similar performance for native software, couldn't all of windows 10 be recoded from scratch to run natively not "emulated" on an ARM chip ?
NOT going to happen for the express reasons I already stated. Games will NOT be ported to ARM because the development time is HUGE. We've already been through this over 10 years ago when Macs were running PPC processors. Games never came and most business applications never came simply because the porting time was through the roof. It's not a simple process to port a game to a completely different processor for one OS.
Comments
It's not the overheads that's the problem it's the security issues allowing other rendering engines opens up. Do you really want to trust Google with their Chrome rendering engine on your iPhone? It's dicey enough on the macOS platform let alone Windows and Linux.
Apple's efforts with HTML5 have been hampered by W3C who can't make their mind up what to put into the standard. W3C seem more intent on caving to Google or Mozilla rather than asking whether or not the implementations are worth it in the first place.
Macs have supported OpenGL since day one but they suffer the same problem as the W3C whereby they have to wait until Kronos make up their mind what they want to support. Apple developed Metal to give us OpenGL without waiting for Kronos.
When it comes to hardware Apple is ONCE AGAIN at the mercy of the hardware manufacturers. Apple has to wait until freaking Intel makes up their mind what they are going to do with their CPUs. Incidentally they largely just end up being incremental speed increases rather than exciting new technology. Why do you think Apple designed their own chips?
The speed decreases by running on macOS hardware is NOT, I repeat, NOT Apple's fault. Time and time again when a games company has ported an OpenGL title to Macs it has run faster on the Mac than the Windows PC. However, MOST games these days DO NOT RUN OpenGL (another reason Apple hasn't gone out of their way to go full on with OpenGL). Most games run DirectX which IS NOT available on macOS or iOS. As such they HAVE to be run in a Wine or Cider wrapper and as such HAVE to have a performance hit. THE HARDWARE IS NOT THE PROBLEM THE DEVELOPERS ARE.
Your grasp on socialism deserves the most ignorant post of the day award. Let me guess. American?
Your right about the waiting game, especially W3C, but it is reasonable I think to stay current with standards as is and not to lack behind. I do hope Apple has the balls to kick Intel out and start using its excellent A10 (and so on) processors/GPUs/DSPs/etc across the line.
It should be noted that before Apple opened the app store on iOS, Apple was pro-actively pushing the HTML5 standard, because it was the only way for developers to interact with the iPhone. Remember when Steve Jobs was fulminating against Flash, he clearly stated that the only way forward for the web was HTML5
Once the app store model was released, there was a new way of developing for iPhone, a way that was much more controlled and liked by Apple. As such Apple lost gradually interest in supporting the new evolutions in HTML5. The fact that Apple gets 30% of the revenue of native apps while 0% for web apps is definitely playing a role.
Currently website builders have to take extra effort to make their sites being viewed correctly in Safari (MacOS and iOS). A little bit like the support for Internet Explorer in the 2000 -2010 time frame. And that is waste of valuable resources. So I have some sympathy for Nexedi to make the issue visible.
Nevertheless despite the fact that Apple lost interest in HTML5, I don't think that Nexendi has a fighting chance.
It currently would be a MASSIVE step backwards going back to Motorola 68000 days. My understanding is that the ARM processor has no Intel code in it (PPC processors did) so to get apps like Wine or Parallels or VMWare etc to work would mean going back to emulator days and in doing so would make the software pretty much useable for the tasks at hand.
It would also hamper game porting and return us to the days where developers would be too lazy to port their games over to the Mac because of the development time required. Apple NEEDS to stick to the Intel processors on the desktops and laptops.
Apple is part of the board developing HTML5. The problem is that the W3C is getting distracted by Google and Microsoft etc pushing their standards and Apple pushing theirs. The funny thing is that Apple's standards are actually better in many ways but they find it hard to get them pushed because Google and Microsoft and others vote to not support that way in favour of their way. This of course now means there's three ways to do the same thing and currently none of them are ratified. As such this case is a pipe dream because the so called HTML5 spec still is nowhere close to being complete.
If you look at Safari on the HTML5test ( https://html5test.com ) site you'll notice that most of what Apple doesn't support is stuff introduced above and beyond the original HTML5 specs and are mostly double up stuff. Why does anyone need to support WebM or OGG Vorbis when years ago HTML5 settled on MP4 as a single standard? As such you now have to support other features to get OGG and WebM to do what is already part of the MP4 specs anyway.
So this developer refuses to support MP4 or now has to include MP4 files so that iOS and macOS is supported when if they actually just used MP4 in the first place their development costs would be reduced anyway.
Apple dropped the ball on Safari once they (thankfully!) tanked Flash, and Explorer went the way of the Dodo.
While they were competing for mindshare, they were constantly near the top of standard compliance.
Jobs even argued for web apps, which tanked due to limitations in ios's Safari (limited number of tabs, etc.) which no longer apply. Just the dozens of various store apps I have do download and install on the phone, cluttering up the phone, shows that most apps would better be web apps.
But this isn't what this is about. Just as yesteryear people rightfully complained about M$ integrating Explorer into Windows in a way that killed competition in the browser market and made it difficult for e.g. people with a Mac to access e.g. banking sites; Apple now (ab)uses its power on the dominant iOS platform to not just preinstall and integrate WebKit/Safari with the system, but contractually prohibit third party browsers.
A company that requires certain HTML5 features can't just redirect users to a different browser, but has to spend a lot of time and money to develop around Apple's deficient standards implementation.
What's at issue here is the PROHIBITION of third party browsers, which is a contract clause that Apple imposes without the ability of a third party to negotiate the contract.
Unsupported APIs are the key issue: web notifications, CSS3 cursors, battery status. vibration, media source extensions, autofocus, keyboardevent, beacons, download attribute, text encoding + decoding, ...
As a web developer you either have to weaken the user experience or to develop around it (using ugly polyfills if available).
The HTML5 standard is a evolving standard, so the original specs are getting outdated. Safari 6 was in 2012 one of the best in terms of compliance, now Safari is the worst in class. The interest of Apple to keep Safari compliant to the actual status of HTML5 has been very low and that is deplorable.
the same iworks they demoed updates to at the iphone event? the same safari that just got a new release? these are the apps not being updated?
Apple mostly supports the HTML5 specifications that make sense but much of the specifications DON'T make sense. Apple does support web notifications because Apple Insider keeps notifying me of new articles. Media extension support IS supported (at least in Safari 10). I'm not sure what you mean by text encoding/decoding but that doesn't even seem to be part of the specs (at least it's not tested for in the above mentioned test).
Everything else is supported by Apple not in the browser but in the OS because that's where it makes SENSE to put it.