Comment by vanviegen
5 years ago
Please just explain your point, instead of being snarky.
I think there are ways to get (a bit of) both. It's not simple though.
5 years ago
Please just explain your point, instead of being snarky.
I think there are ways to get (a bit of) both. It's not simple though.
The point (which I vehemently disagree with) is that prompting for permission is insufficient because illiterate users will just click accept on the dialogs.
So apparently we now have to restrict all interesting functionality in the name of keeping the lowest common denominator from shooting their metaphorical feet. If there's a more charitable way to read their stance, I'd love to hear it.
> The point (which I vehemently disagree with) is that prompting for permission is insufficient because illiterate users will just click accept on the dialogs.
I had 2 points actually, which I thought I made very legibly. I didn't think they they need a fourth reading but here we are... They are both solidly confirmed by present day reality. 1) is what you mentioned already. As seen with cookie prompts, app permissions, actual scientific studies, etc. if you pester people with alerts and popups they are desensitized and start ignoring and accepting them. 2) is that once you give a website permission you lost control. They lack even the modicum of oversight apps receive.
> So apparently we now have to restrict all interesting functionality
All? Hyperbole much? Or did you just decide that these 16 APIs are the crux of "interesting functionality" and freedom? It doesn't matter how much you allow there's always going to be someone to shout "they restricting eeeeverything around here". This is what security and privacy measures do, restrict some things because the benefit doesn't outweigh the cost/risk. All those features are sold as "essential" when in fact most of them at best address some minor nuisance. Then they're promptly hijacked for nefarious purposes because there's always going to be some wannabe coder who insists that his website needs to know my battery level for some (undoubtedly good) reason.
Care to ponder how we got here in the first place? With every piece of tech around trying to steal data from you one way or another, usually in a dishonest way? There's a reason Google is championing this and it's not that they want to give you "interesting features".
It's always a compromise and for the past decade+ we've been compromising a lot more on the privacy side. If you truly believe you can have both privacy and aaaaalll interesting functionality in the real world you're either naive or sitting on a gold mine.
>It doesn't matter how much you allow there's always going to be someone to shout "they restricting eeeeverything around here".
A good example here would be the MIDI interface getting blocked because it allows binary uploads via certain control message, as well as device enumeration.
If privacy is the main issue with this API, then the allowed control messages that the API would accept could be limited strictly to note on, note off, key velocity, etc.. things that have no realistic possibility of data leakage or compromise.
But instead, no, we lose the whole thing, even though a more nuanced approach (and in this case, one that's easy to implement - MIDI being rather straightforward) would satisfy any privacy concerns.
So with that in mind, the fact that a privacy-respecting alternative exists, no. I don't believe for a hot minute that that this is all about privacy - that is mere marketing fluff. I instead believe it is Apple is using privacy as a pretext for ensuring that PWAs remain as gimped second-class citizens on the platform in furtherance of their lock-in.
2 replies →