This might be a hint that Apple is planning to—or might actually be compelled to—open up the current browser restrictions.
It might also be Google preparing itself to take advantage of that change just in case that happens.
Some browser competition on iOS would be good. Apple has dragged its feet on Safari for too long.
The ironic thing is that if Apple actually went all-in and made a first-class browser that would enable developers to due first-class progressive web apps (vs. native only) they'd likely achieve three things:
1. They offload a shit-ton of apps from the app store (and the corresponding load on that staff) that really do not need to be native apps. 2. They'd be able to point to this as an "alternative app store" (in a way) when the anti-trust bozos come knocking at their door for:
alternative app-loading
payment restrictions
browser competition
They could kill three birds with one stone if they simply opened up browser competition.
They would, in all likelihood, retain the apps as native that are most profitable to them anyway.
They might lose some revenue/profit but it's a small price to pay vs. the damage the DoJ could inflect if Apple isn't careful.
Apple's gonna claim "security" and "quality" and so on...but these are—in practice—lame (and indefensible) excuses.
[emphasis added]
That Apple has not adopted features does not mean Apple is dragging its feet. History suggests that Apple is carefully considering all options, deciding on the best way forward, developing a solution and will unveil that to the world once it meets a certain standard of quality.
I'm not keeping a close eye on web tech any more because most suggested features are "wouldn't it be cool if" rather than "we can do this and it won't open a ton of security holes." Because contrary to your assertion, there are plenty of people in the world who recognise the work involved in dealing with security failures and would much rather avoid that mess. There are also people who appreciate high quality products and services and are willing to wait for a better result (c.f. iPhone customers delaying purchases rather than switching).
If you want a particular result and don't care about the costs, more power to you. If you evaluate the costs and feel the trade-off is worth it, also great - nobody should be forced to accept a situation they deem untenable. Just be open to the idea that (a potentially significant number of) other people will determine that they don't want to accept the trade-offs being made, and extend them the same courtesy.
Comments
That Apple has not adopted features does not mean Apple is dragging its feet. History suggests that Apple is carefully considering all options, deciding on the best way forward, developing a solution and will unveil that to the world once it meets a certain standard of quality.
I'm not keeping a close eye on web tech any more because most suggested features are "wouldn't it be cool if" rather than "we can do this and it won't open a ton of security holes." Because contrary to your assertion, there are plenty of people in the world who recognise the work involved in dealing with security failures and would much rather avoid that mess. There are also people who appreciate high quality products and services and are willing to wait for a better result (c.f. iPhone customers delaying purchases rather than switching).
If you want a particular result and don't care about the costs, more power to you. If you evaluate the costs and feel the trade-off is worth it, also great - nobody should be forced to accept a situation they deem untenable. Just be open to the idea that (a potentially significant number of) other people will determine that they don't want to accept the trade-offs being made, and extend them the same courtesy.