I can easily imagine a "platform" WASM module which acts as a runtime for other WASM modules built by "app" developers. This Platform module can be easily cached by FAANG or other big commercial interests, similar to AMP by Google (maybe even be pre-bundled into the browser?). The only way to discover, download and run these other apps is through this curated Platform module. All this could be rendered through something like the Canvas API instead of the DOM, which again is managed on a low level by the Platform and in turn exposes higher level API's for the Apps. The Platform also has built in support for Ad networks, tracking, etc., which cannot be disabled without disabling the whole ecosystem of apps. And of course, like any good play/app store, it is completely incompatible with anything else, leading to new levels of Balkanization of the web.

I hope that this isn't the case, and I'm completely wrong about this. But I just can't shake the feeling that as a community, we are championing WebAssembly as purely a performance win, without considering how big commercial interests might seek to exploit this new technology.

Edit: typo with AMP

And from there it is just the next step to run a base platform like Android user space or a simple runtime like blazor.

In the end wasm is a runtime. There were physical Java Processors and I am pretty sure there will be webassembly processors.

Thanks for dooming us all, hombre. I'm holding you personally responsible when it happens.

In fact I think it may already have. Took a look at a web based learning portal for my niece the other day, and after poking around in devtoolsfound it was pretty similar to what you described.

Every webpage pays for the traffic in some way, and everybody tries to save web traffic as much as possible (optimizing images, videos, minifying JS, CSS ...). It makes no sense to expect, that websites would turn the opposite way just for fun.

I would be very glad, if you can emulate a computer in a browser, so you can e.g. use VirtualBox or VMWare comfortably in your browser. Still, it will be sandboxed (it can not turn off your computer, or clear your hard drive, etc.).

I think the web is the most open, independent, secure and versatile platform today. And I hope it will become even better and more powerful in the future.

I'm not talking about the sandboxed browser being able to "clear your hard drive", etc. I'm talking about users having no real agency when it comes to controlling the presentation of websites. (Sure, it's code running on your computer. You're free to attach a debugger to step thru native code that runs a VM that runs a nested VM that's ultimately running the code you'd actually like to influence. Let me know how that goes for you.)

Have you seen JSLinux[1]?

[1] - https://bellard.org/jslinux/

I think blocking ads is a game you can never win. If you are able to block ads on some websites today, it is just because the site owners allow you to do so (they could easily prevent you from doing so). Ads technologies can evolve to a point when you as a human can not distinguish between ads and the rest of the content.

If the embedded browser uses the host's HTTP implementation, then you can filter and edit content there.

If it implements HTTP itself on top of raw sockets, then you can intercept traffic on socket level (although you'd need to MITM any SSL connection).

So, on something like iOS, it could be game over (but I'm also curious what Apple is going to do with wasm there, given that it goes contrary to their strategy of being the gatekeeper for all code running on the platform). But not for the rest.

Have you not worked in tech long? One of my 'favourite' things about one tech stack I once worked on was that someone decided to implement a file-system inside the a database that is stored on the file system. Even better, the database itself effectively just reimplements the features of a database.

So we have a file-system storing a database that exposes a completely different database that holds a file system.

Browsers are large and complicated software packages for a reason. Best of luck to whoever tries to compete with it in a browser in a browser.

To be honest, it's a unique property of the web for you to be able to easily read the source; however, users of other platforms such as Qt are not expected to read the source. The web is simply moving in the direction of all other UI platforms, so I don't quite understand the outrage. Yes, it sucks, but it'll make apps faster than the Electron mess we have now.

Also, arguments of the form of "X is unique, all others are doing the bad thing" are suspicious to me. This would mean we should cherish and preserve X, bringing the good aspect to other platforms, not devolving it into mediocrity or worse.

What won't be great are sites that do this to enforce ad viewing. But if it becomes common enough, you can expect ad-blockers to act on the frame-buffer of that virtual browser.

Anyway, the most annoying will be the stupid people that do that just because "Even Google does it!" "It's webscale!", or whatever people will be saying 5 years from now.

Sounds like a slippery slope to me. What makes you think users will be satisfied with load times for something like that, which also probably will have a frustrating-to-use interface?

A third party that offers a way to run that on their iPad at the cost of a one-time 100MB download will find customers.

archive.org also might find something like it useful. How else are you going to show old sites in 20 year’s time?

All it will take is for ADK to a have button that produces a wasm version of your app.