This is all very deep in the weeds, biased and opinionated, so it's hard for me to draw my own conclusion with all the missing facts that may or may not exist from Apple's side. What I will say is that it's very funny that Apple, on all of its browsers, does not currently support the squircle corner shape—a piece of flair that is iconically Apple.
The article is about how Apple is underdelivering in browser features and compatibility while pretending they aren't. It's about Apple. Apple. The ones responsible for a great many features not being supported in all browsers.
What does a web dev have to do with Apple's choice? How do you improve Safari by not using features it doesn't support? What does your comment have to do with the argument the article is making?
And since outside the EU, all alternative browsers on iOS/iPadOS are just rebadged Safari, this degrades the Web on those platforms. Not entirely coincidentally, Apple has a strong incentive to encourage native apps over web ones.
You appear to be arguing that we shouldn't care that Apple provides a consistently bad experience and locks their users into it, because web developers can level the field by degrading everyone else's experience too. There's a nice couple paragraphs in the article that explain why we should in fact care, and you don't seem to have addressed them, so let me reproduce them for you in case you missed them. (also fyi "it's not that hard, ask your LLM" comes across a bit snarky):
These large, persistent gaps matter to the mobile and web ecosystems because Apple is unique in denying access to more capable, less-buggy engines and actively erecting unlawful barriers to choice when forced by legislation to enable it. This is accomplished through eye-watering budgets for legal shenanigans, direct lobbying, and well-heeled astroturf front groups to maintain a capability gap between web and native.4
That chasm is instrumental in trapping users and developers in the extractive vice of Cupertino's App Store. A persistent, material gap in capabilities creates a perception of the web being less-than; a budget option for the unserious. Should users choose more capable, more private, less buggy browsers for a larger share of their computing needs, Apple might lose the leverage that enables it to extract rents.
The author may get further if they put love of communication over love of language.
"Rubbishing" is a worthless gerund. Is rubbish even a verb anywhere?
https://64.media.tumblr.com/32cb3be24eb46c26ffcaea9bbebc1c62...
Allow me to rubbish your claim. It's a common use.
"To rubbish" is a very common verb, at least in British English.
Is it transitive? As an American I know the word, but rubbish as a verb is utterly unfamiliar.
Yes. "I rubbished his proposal", i.e. "I criticised his proposal".
(I can't imagine what an intransitive 'rubbish' would mean!)
Thanks, that makes the parallels with "trash" clear. I could have chosen a better example.
It's the UK equivalent of the US "trashing".
This is all very deep in the weeds, biased and opinionated, so it's hard for me to draw my own conclusion with all the missing facts that may or may not exist from Apple's side. What I will say is that it's very funny that Apple, on all of its browsers, does not currently support the squircle corner shape—a piece of flair that is iconically Apple.
Yow! Well said.
If not all browsers support a feature, don't use it, or make it optional. It's not that hard. If you can't figure it out, ask your LLM.
The article is about how Apple is underdelivering in browser features and compatibility while pretending they aren't. It's about Apple. Apple. The ones responsible for a great many features not being supported in all browsers.
What does a web dev have to do with Apple's choice? How do you improve Safari by not using features it doesn't support? What does your comment have to do with the argument the article is making?
And since outside the EU, all alternative browsers on iOS/iPadOS are just rebadged Safari, this degrades the Web on those platforms. Not entirely coincidentally, Apple has a strong incentive to encourage native apps over web ones.
You appear to be arguing that we shouldn't care that Apple provides a consistently bad experience and locks their users into it, because web developers can level the field by degrading everyone else's experience too. There's a nice couple paragraphs in the article that explain why we should in fact care, and you don't seem to have addressed them, so let me reproduce them for you in case you missed them. (also fyi "it's not that hard, ask your LLM" comes across a bit snarky):
These large, persistent gaps matter to the mobile and web ecosystems because Apple is unique in denying access to more capable, less-buggy engines and actively erecting unlawful barriers to choice when forced by legislation to enable it. This is accomplished through eye-watering budgets for legal shenanigans, direct lobbying, and well-heeled astroturf front groups to maintain a capability gap between web and native.4
That chasm is instrumental in trapping users and developers in the extractive vice of Cupertino's App Store. A persistent, material gap in capabilities creates a perception of the web being less-than; a budget option for the unserious. Should users choose more capable, more private, less buggy browsers for a larger share of their computing needs, Apple might lose the leverage that enables it to extract rents.