Factual points I started with:
- Both Firefox and Safari are against most hardware APIs for many reasons including technical ones.
- The section "Edge differentiates from Chrome because it removed a few Google-specific things like Google Pay" is laughable
Your "response" is, "oh, you don't believe in web apps" and "Our group was initially formed by a group of people who develop for iOS Safari on daily basis".
These are not factual points. These are attempts to dodge a conversation. And when the conversation seemingly starts happening, it's "the facts you provided are not facts, they are strawmen".
Yes. It truly is pointless discussing this. There are many, many, many issues we can discuss about Safari. With people who have done their research and don't willingly assume the role of Google's propaganda amplifier. Thankfully, as the comments to the original link show, more and more people are starting have a more sober outlook on what's happening.
tl;dr if you think your dignity is above responding to someone, don't.
Just as an example: do you believe web apps are currently treated by apple in a lower tier than native apps?
if so, do you think they should be n-class citizens, where n is the same class as native ios apps?
if you do not, then I can see why you do not personally want the things that come with it, like your other conversation partner said
Does this have anything to do with anything I said in my thread? No. So, this question is not in good faith, so why should I engage with it?
> if so, do you think
Do you think that ascribing thoughts and words to your opponent that your opponent never thought or said is a good argument?
It doesn't matter what I think or what I don't think when my argument literally began with finding incorrect arguments made in actual bad faith with no research in the "paper" made by OWA. Both you and OP couldn't care less, and you both try to deflect with "do you believe blah blah blah".
I could go with a not-so-fine-comb through the document and point out every misrepresentation, incorrect assumption and outright lies. I picked two. What followed is now open for the world to see.
You clearly don't understand what "good faith" is, and certainly are not an unbiased judge of it, being 1 of the 2 people involved in the accusation. It means asking because you are legitimately interested in the answer. It does not mean "I, as self-appointed judge of this discussion, unilaterally deem your question irrelevant". Indeed, if the question and answer are actually irrelevant, you can trust the smart posters here to be the judge of that, so you need not fear answering truthfully and candidly.
In any case, _I_ am legitimately interested in the answer, but even without my admission, you are supposed to assume good faith on this forum (HN), versus your current, combative, antagonistic, almost litigious (OBJECTION, RELEVANCE! SUSTAINED, I RULE IN MY OWN FAVOR!) attitude towards your fellow posters.
https://open-web-advocacy.org/files/OWA%20-%20Bringing%20Com... (Section 5.6 and 5.8)
2. Safari is missing core functionality and significantly lags behind Firefox and Chrome / Edge. Sections 5.3 5.4
If you want to focus on specific functionality, then the ability to install a web app (Section 5.4.3.1 and Section 5.4.5 go into that in detail).
For evidence that Safari is significantly behind Firefox and Chrome/Edge see 5.4.1.
I focused on some APIs I know about. There's nothing strawman about facts that you misrepresented in your diatribe. How can I be sure that you represented everything else correctly?
Oh. I can't. Because I also saw your section on "Edge differentiation".
Should I go through everyting else and discover same misrepresentation and falseness? I think I won't, these two are quite enough, thank you.
> Instead let’s focus on the core issues
You keep skipping from goal post to goal post, and each next argument you make isn't made in good faith.
> 1. 2.
I'm not even going to dignify this speculation with an answer
> 3. 4.
And again and again all comes down to literally one or two standards. That's it. That's all you really have.
Well, sometimes you have more, but then it's just a random dump of random standards that you are absolutely sure are actual standards (and not "Draft comunity reports" by Google) and that everyone must implement them now.
> Without a viable web ecosystem on iOS mobile
Please define a "viable web ecosystem". So far it looks like to you "a viable ecosystem" is "anything that Google implements, others be damned".
> web apps are dead
Yes, they are dead. For many reasons that have nothing to do with notifications.
> The fix for this scenario is competition. With a 60% market share on MacOS
Yes. Let's talk about competition. There is none, it's fully dominated by Google: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31905404
Oh wait. You don't really care about that.
> A highly funded Webkit be able to contribute to the web ecosystem instead of holding it back.
Webkit is contributing to the web ecosystem, and isn't holding it back. For the obvious reason that your definition of a viable web is taken straight out of Google propaganda, and has nothing to do with making the web viable.