This is a feature that Chrome has had for about 6 years. The fact you haven't discovered it shows Chrome's UX could be better, but the fact you haven't searched for it might alsp show that the popups aren't quite such a problem for you after all.
Is that really a cleaner, less intrusive UX for you then it would be to have an easily ignorable button next to a website's address bar that would allow you to turn notifications on or off for each website with maybe three or four clicks at max?
I can always chose not to install an app.
> Is that really a cleaner, less intrusive UX for...
Imho it's a security question. I don't care if it's clean or less intrusive, the browser should be a sandbox.
Sure, but I can also choose not to use a website or service. If a set of features is only available in a specific medium (whether that's a website or an app) your choice is the same -- you either use it in that medium or you don't.
> the browser should be a sandbox.
This is an interesting point, because I do get where you're coming from, but I almost draw the opposite conclusion from the same data. The browser is a sandbox, so I want to put things in it. I refuse to install a native app to check my bank balance or post on social media, I don't trust those companies with that level of access to my phone.
The browser is a better sandbox than my native device, and notifications don't really break the browser sandbox in any significant way. So if (as heavyset_go suggests) notifications are the difference between having an app built in the sandbox or out of it, then I want notifications, because I want the app to be built in the sandbox.
If having notifications could make it feasible to use Twitter without installing an app, then great, we should do that. Or if notifications are enough that I don't need to have an email app or Matrix client installed... it's a pretty substantial win for security if I can get rid of those apps on my phone and use them as mobile progressive websites instead. Having email notifications on my phone is mandatory for me, I can't drop that feature. But is that alone a good reason to install a completely separate application that's requesting filesystem access or contact access?
If you turn notifications off for Chrome everywhere you won't see Chrome web notifications anywhere.
If you're talking about some other way websites can send notifications to your phone then I don't think that has anything to do with Chrome. And I can't think of what mechanism you're talking about.
That is true, but not really relevant to what he said. He didn't say "I wish there was a way to configure my browser to not send notifications to my phone".
You then followed up with a snarky line telling them the thing that bothers them doesn't actually bother them, and that wasn't great either.
He said he doesn't want chrome to be able to push notifications to his phone. Having an option to disable that feature means it is has to be possible in the first place.
Maybe I am being overly pedantic, but to me the distinction matters.
If you want it for yourself, you can make it happen. If you change a setting that disables ALL notifications for Chrome in your Android phone, your condition is satisfied. Chrome is not able to send notifications, unless the developers find a workaround :)
I want selected websites to be pushing notifications to me through Firefox. For example ebay-kleinanzeigen. Why should I install an app for that purpose?
>Chrome is not able to send notifications, unless the developers find a workaround :)
Yes, it is able to send notifications. It won't (or shouldn't, at least) but it is still capable of sending notifications.
If I put my manual transmission car in first gear, it's never going to shift to second, but it still able shift to second.
Lets say I told you your showerhead has the capability to live stream your showers on youtube, but that feature has been toggled off. I'm sure you would understand if some people didn't want that to be possible in the first place, whether or not you agree with them.
> Why should I install an app for that purpose?
I'm not saying you should! I'm not arguing the merits of the original opinion, I'm simply saying there is a difference between whether an application can do something, and whether it will do something.
Chrome should default not to prompt. Safari estimates that no one wants this, and I suspect they’re right.
It absolutely should. Making the default "never prompt" would lead to websites prompting users to modify their preferences and change security settings. We do not want to normalize that behaviour. It would be a security nightmare. The defaults might be a little annoying for users (who can switch it to never prompt if they want to) but keeping average users who do want email or chat notifications safe online should take priority.
And I don’t think web sites would prompt this as they don’t on Safari and that works out ok.
I think Chrome defaults stuff that Google thinks makes advertisers more money and Google more money. Safari defaults stuff that Apple thinks users want.
You might not, but our users requested desktop and mobile notifications. The notifications let sick patients know when their prescriptions are ready, facilitate care-provider check ups, etc.
It would be reasonable to allow notifications only to installed PWA, and not just any website you visit.
Then there would be people who are trying to make you "install" their PWA at any cost, then sell their install base and the buyers will simply rename the app/website to anything they want.
It can actually be another golden age for the web while making users hate their phones.
What would be different?
Getting asked to enable a browser feature is not more annoying than getting asked to exit the app and install a brand new native app with worse sandboxing and privacy. It's at most the same level of annoying.
The app experience is almost always better because you always have more screen real estate, higher performance, better persistence and the developer has more opportunities to monetise you which eases the need to shove all the adds technologically possible into your face before you leave and never come back.
Visiting a new website in 2021 has the following installation process:
0) click a link
1) download the website. Websites are bloated these days, things jump around until you download and execute a few MB of JS, CSS, HTML and so on.
2) accept/deny tracking(usually designed to trick you into accepting)
3) accept/deny subscribing to newsletters(usually the skip button is obscured)
4) try to figure out what is this all about, trying to distinguish site element from ads
5) if you still want to continue you probably will need to create an account for anything that's beyond an article. Many times, you will need to create an account even for an article
6) after all that jazz you can actually try out the app/website or consume the article
7) if you like what you see, you need to bookmark/add to home screen
An app experiance is something like this:
0) click a link
1) see screenshots and explanation of what this app is all about, accompanied with reviews and ratings
3) if you like what you se, tap install, make a fingerprint scan or a face scan to download and open the app
4) try out the app. if you like it, it will be on your homescreen to use again. if you don't like it, you can delete it from the same place.
For both cases, any use hardware or system API you will get about the same popup asking you to give access to location/microphone/camera/bluetooth. For the mobile app the experience of managing it will be easier since it will have standardised settings in the device settings and you know the permissions are revoked when you delete the app.
For web apps you don't have an uninstall process. You need to dive into browser settings to remove history, cookies etc.
> The app experience is almost always better
Strong disagree. Even on iOS native apps are more invasive and have fewer privacy controls than a website does. That's why all of these websites want you to install apps. Facebook isn't asking you to install their app because it'll be a better experience for you, they're asking you to install their app because then they can request contact permissions.
> 0) [...] 1) [...] 2) [...] etc...
This is just nonsense. You're arguing that configuring a browser to default-deny permission prompts is a worse experience than getting badgered to install a completely separate application every single time you visit Reddit.
And to your point on advertising, this is a good reason to have an app environment that supports competent adblocking. Neither Safari nor iOS provides APIs to do that for websites or for native apps.
This all kind of boils down to, you have an environment with less sandboxing, less privacy, less granular permissions, and a longer install process (visit a site, switch apps, download and install a new app, switch apps again, then uninstall and clean up when you're done); but it's OK because the process of building an app is so cumbersome that a lot of businesses won't bother? This may not be the persuasive argument you think it is.
I mean, you can tell me all you want that notification prompts are worse than the current system of websites constantly asking to exit the website and install a new thing that gives them native file access to my phone, but... I browse the mobile web. I know what the mobile web is like from day-to-day experience, notification prompts are not the reason that the mobile Reddit website is annoying to use.
Instead, I see a lot of "enable notifications to prove you're not a robot" scam fake-CAPTCHAs and a lot of newspaper/TV/media sites asking for it. Just because I want to read one article doesn't mean I'm naturally after an update every time you post anything else.
They'd get to claim privacy/user safety (no drive by permissions grab)
But, this eats into their walled garden money pit, so yeah it's not going to happen..
Personally, this is how I feel about downloading apps to my phone for every individual service and product. I see no need to download a separate app for each individual service I'm interested in, as the potential for abuse is higher than getting the occasional notification from my browser app and visiting their website.
However, it sounds to me like the focus should be on minimizing the potential for any avenue of information delivery to be abused, not to remove or decline to add features for fear that they will be. From the user side, I'm not interested in being told by a developer, "download my app if it's so important to you." I'd probably never discover how useful a service can be if I would have to download another app to try it. From the developer side, I'm not interested in telling potential users, "you actually don't want that feature."
However I routinely deny notification requests in Firefox so this is not a problem. I also routinely deny the permission to use canvas image data. Firefox warns it can be used to fingerprint browsers https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-protection-agai...
Sadly Apple does its best to make more money. If they allow other browser engines they'd end up selling less apps. IMHO they'll care about privacy only until it positively correlates with making money. If it will ever cost them more than it gains, they'll find a way to weaken privacy without losing face.
An example, Apple ruthlessly enforcing in app payments for small companies but bowing to Netflix, Amazon and the like. They know they would sell less phones if those apps won't run on iOS.
And that's expected. Why would a company care about you and me in this age? No more than what you and me would care about ants.
Removing this feature from all users though is not a good solution either. Chrome allows you to block notifications from all sites so you don't have to dismiss requests anymore which seems like it would suit your needs and at the same time allow others to use this feature.
The whole discussion is about it being unnecessary resource use to develop said "simple app" due to Apple's restrictions on mobile Safari..
> Despite the web app working perfectly on Android and across Windows, Linux and macOS without native integration, we now must dedicate time and resources to develop an additional iOS app just so iOS users, which over half of Americans are, aren't left out.
> This is an expensive endeavor time-wise and money-wise, during a pandemic where time is of the essence and resources are stretched thin. It shouldn't be this way, but it is.
The end result is that, right now, some sick patients are punished for their wrong choice of phone or tablet because the native app doesn't exist yet, while others don't have a problem.
Personally on Android I have enabled notifications from a total of 2 sites and I find the experience quite good. I actually think its better than having to install an app for something that you rarely use just for that one time you will need to receive a notification from it.
Who are you? And why does only your absolute opinion matter, when others are asking for a choice?
We are the the 99%
I'm not defending stupid notification popups from some website you'll only ever visit once. Those are annoying. I'm saying you can't tell what users want unless you specifically measure exactly that. Maybe you're right and 99% of users don't want notifications, but that's not what your cited numbers show. You're drawing a conclusion from the data that isn't there.
And besides, for something to be spam you need to actually see it. In the case of notifications if you deny the permission on a site you don't see the notifications. That's the perfect spam filter. Imagine a world where people could only send you email if you explicitly said you accepted it from them. Or if robocallers could only call you if you agreed first. Spam would be over. There would be no spam. That sounds fantastic.
> Somehow, by the time it reaches any of my multiple inboxes it’s not 99% spam
Right. Email providers didn't fix spam by throwing away the ability to send unsolicited messages, they fixed it by looking at the behavior of bad actors and blocking it, and evolving the UX of email services to adapt ("Report Spam" buttons and the like). My comment above was intended to suggest that rather than demanding the industry throw out the feature that would allow a website to send notifications at all, they can instead invest in making the experience more streamlined for the user (fewer notifications, less intrusive request flow). They could even use some of the same techniques used in fighting spam, like allowing users to report sites that are abusive in how they ask for permission.
The subtext here is that I think progressive web apps have the potential to foster a more open online culture than can be achieved through app stores alone, and they also give the user more control over the experience, since they leverage the browser, which is a "user agent" in a way that that apps rarely (if ever) achieve. Adopting a stance that solidifies the current inadequacies of web apps pushes more users and developers to "app store apps", which tilt the balance of power towards app store owners and away from users and developers. I think that trend has already caused problems (Spotify, Fortnite, Librem Tunnel[0], etc.), and I don't see any reason the problems will lessen in the future.
[0]: https://puri.sm/posts/why-librem-tunnel-is-leaving-ios/