←back to thread

Apple declined to implement 16 Web APIs in Safari due to privacy concerns

(www.zdnet.com)
428 points coronadisaster | 3 comments | 29 Jun 20 10:16 UTC | HN request time: 0.072s | source
Show context
Lio ◴[29 Jun 20 14:08 UTC] No.23677734[source]▶
I'm sad that this is necessary.

Most comments here seem to of the "Good no one should write a web page that accesses bluetooth and I don't care if you want to do that".

This is sad for me because I would like to be able to write web pages that talk to smart turbo trainers and other health devices.

Now you might say why not write a app to do that but personally I prefer accessing stuff from web pages.

I find apps restrictive as a user. For example there is no way to block ads in an app and often no way to zoom or select text.

Again you might be fine with that but I just wanted to offer an alternative opinion.

replies(2): >>23679556 #>>23680267 #
1. ryandrake ◴[29 Jun 20 17:12 UTC] No.23679556[source]▶
I think it's about user expectations. As a user, when I'm browsing the web, I expect to be reading primarily text, with a hyperlink here and there, maybe some images. If I need to interact with the web site, I expect to see text input fields, a "submit" button of some sort, etc. When I click on a link and browse to another web page, I expect to see something similar: Hypertext, images, maybe a form field or two. I don't expect to have a peripheral attached to my computer get its firmware updated.

The APIs listed in the article are so far outside what I would expect to be a HTML browser's business. It's ridiculous. If I want to do any of these, I'll install an application to do them.

Installing an application is a nice speed bump. It's a deliberate action that the user has to take and think about. When I hand over my root password to my installer, or when my operating system asks me, "Do you really want to install this application?" it gives me the opportunity to pause and reflect on what I'm doing here. Who is the company behind this application? What access to my life am I giving it? Am I OK with running this application on my personal computer? Sometimes, after reflection, I hit cancel and get rid of the installer.

This whole contemplative speed bump goes away when rando web site written by rando developer, getting paid by collecting who-knows-what can suddenly do a Bluetooth scan or talk USB to one of my devices, merely by my issuing a GET request.

replies(1): >>23680476 #
2. remus ◴[29 Jun 20 18:16 UTC] No.23680476[source]▶
I think this is a pretty narrow vision of what the web can be. For example, text + hyperlinks excludes things like google maps and youtube, which are quite literally world changing pieces of technology.

For sure there is a balance to be struck in terms of how much access we allow other people to our phones and computers, but let's not kill off whole classes of novel applications before they've even had a chance to be built.

replies(1): >>23680810 #
3. Nursie ◴[29 Jun 20 18:38 UTC] No.23680810[source]▶
No, let's do that. Please.

Web sites have no business looking at my devices, nor using other APIs (I was disappointed not to see the page visibility API on the linked page too).

If you want a dynamic app delivery framework, perhaps it's time we find a way to do that which doesn't massively overload what many expect is just an informational service.