When he looked that inspired and emphatic he could convince he flys, R.I.P Apple could surely use a take no shit Chuck Norris at the top somewhere to help Timm deal all this crap
They should, but you know what the w3c or w3.org is BS! On the DAILY now, it's freaking:
Use Safari ( yes | no ) 40% chance it works
goto Technology Preview ( yes | no ) 10%
goto Chrome ( yes | no ) 20%
goto Firefox ( yes | no ) 20%
worse case, fire up bootcamp
Internet Explorer ( yes | no ) 5%
Edge ( yes | no ) 5%
Chrome (on Windows | yes | no ) 5%
Firefox (on Windows | yes | no ) 5%
It's bull crap, if websites don't work to have to go thru that sequence from top to bottom to have to get a web page to load if something is funky...
Yeah! Good job on STANDARDIZATION!
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:
nonsense. web apps running html, css and javascript downloaded over the wire and interpreted in-browser will never be as fast as a compiled native app. that's just computer science.
this already happened when native apps beat web apps years ago.
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:
Look for more tech-related lawsuits filed by European companies against American companies. Litigation is now the only way for Europe to make money in tech.
... 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.
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.
If the tremendous number of iOS (first) gaming apps haven't yet caused the cogs to click and whirr at Apple I doubt it will ever happen.
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.
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.
I find that Safari is crashy on my iPad. I wouldn't doubt that it may be due to Apple not supporting standards. I often end up copying the link and viewing it in Firefox so it isn't a hardware issue.
I don't think anyone cares much about webm in Safari...
As much as I hate the over reach of the EU and in this case some of the stupidity enshrined as law in France, Apple has really screwed up here. At one time Safari was making head way, frankly leading the pack. Today safari seems to be a second thought on Mac OS and iOS.
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.
If Apple were genuinely trying to hold back the web, they'd implement the features - but make them grossly inefficient. They haven't done that and comparable browsers are known for being poor users of ram and processing power. (Especially Chrome, which is a battery, ram and CPU hog.)
If you rush support - especially for web standards. You're risking not just buggy, inefficient code but code that creates security holes.
This company chose to invest in the Apple platform and all of its apparent restrictions and limitations. If Apple's implementation is not to Nexendi's liking there is nothing at all preventing them from focusing 100% of their development investment and resources on the Android platform and/or even Windows 10 (cough cough). They are not being forced to build on Apple's curated and licensed smartphone platform. They can move on.
As far as standards are concerned, I don't see where one ISV has authority to challenge another ISV on the validity or completeness of the others' adherence to a standard in a civil court. Perhaps in the court of public opinion or through publishing compatibility recommendations for their customers, like "not recommended for use with Safari." These issues are typically dealt with through issuance of licenses or certification credentials under control of an agreed upon conformance authority that is recognized throughout an industry. Like many standards (at least non-safety related ones), it's only as good as its ability to be enforced and some organization or body has to be responsible for handling conformance, certification, and enforcement. Throwing this particular case to the lawyers seems like a slippery slope, especially for protocol standards that are constantly evolving, always under revision, and laden with gray areas. I can see where non-conformant products could be treated as false advertising if the product vendor advertises that their product is fully conformant yet the product fails to meet objective performance or quality factors/measures due to its lack of conformance. But this seems like a product issue between end customers and product vendors and could be difficult to prove. I can see the standards body's enforcement agency being called in to intervene, but again, throwing this in civil court isn't going to serve any purpose.
That picture (one that shows percentage between various browsers) doesn't bode well for Apple.
And I agree with @wizard69 that iWorks got overlooked for so long. It used to be much better than MS Office for normal users. Now it's just a shadow of itself.
But I can't help but laughed at his reasoning. "Nexendi notes that on macOS, they suggest the user install an alternate browser. It would tell users to abandon iOS in order to use its products, but it has found that "iPhones are the dominant devices with a loyal user base" and it would be a poor business decision to abandon the platform."
Well, yes.. if I want to play your game and you tell me to switch to Android for that I will only have one thing to say.. "Screws you!"
Comments
When he looked that inspired and emphatic he could convince he flys, R.I.P
this already happened when native apps beat web apps years ago.
Interestingly,
thays how steve jobs started the iPhone.
But prople preferred real apps.
Rather not go in reverse.
Litigation is now the only way for Europe to make money in tech.
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.
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.
If the tremendous number of iOS (first) gaming apps haven't yet caused the cogs to click and whirr at Apple I doubt it will ever happen.
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.
They'll never go near OpenDoc ever. Such a shame. It was years ahead of its time and had limitless possibilities.
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.
If you rush support - especially for web standards. You're risking not just buggy, inefficient code but code that creates security holes.
As far as standards are concerned, I don't see where one ISV has authority to challenge another ISV on the validity or completeness of the others' adherence to a standard in a civil court. Perhaps in the court of public opinion or through publishing compatibility recommendations for their customers, like "not recommended for use with Safari." These issues are typically dealt with through issuance of licenses or certification credentials under control of an agreed upon conformance authority that is recognized throughout an industry. Like many standards (at least non-safety related ones), it's only as good as its ability to be enforced and some organization or body has to be responsible for handling conformance, certification, and enforcement. Throwing this particular case to the lawyers seems like a slippery slope, especially for protocol standards that are constantly evolving, always under revision, and laden with gray areas. I can see where non-conformant products could be treated as false advertising if the product vendor advertises that their product is fully conformant yet the product fails to meet objective performance or quality factors/measures due to its lack of conformance. But this seems like a product issue between end customers and product vendors and could be difficult to prove. I can see the standards body's enforcement agency being called in to intervene, but again, throwing this in civil court isn't going to serve any purpose.
And I agree with @wizard69 that iWorks got overlooked for so long. It used to be much better than MS Office for normal users. Now it's just a shadow of itself.
But I can't help but laughed at his reasoning.
"Nexendi notes that on macOS, they suggest the user install an alternate browser. It would tell users to abandon iOS in order to use its products, but it has found that "iPhones are the dominant devices with a loyal user base" and it would be a poor business decision to abandon the platform."
Well, yes.. if I want to play your game and you tell me to switch to Android for that I will only have one thing to say..
"Screws you!"
https://www.nexedi.com