Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 25th Feb 2015 16:05 UTC
Internet & Networking

But here's the current reality, one that has been accurate for awhile. Apple has a very, very strong influence over what standards get adopted and what standards do not. Partly it's market share, partly it's developer bias (see, for example, how other vendors eventually felt forced to start supporting the webkit prefix due to vendor prefix abuse).

Apple simply does not play well with other vendors when it comes to standardization. The same sort of things we once criticized Microsoft for doing long ago, we give Apple a pass on today. They're very content to play in their own little sandbox all too often.

All this specifically pertaining to the Touch Events/Pointer Events dichotomy. The latter is superior, but Apple refuses to support it, while the former couldn't be adopted because of patent threats from Apple. So, Pointer Events is now finalised, but Apple will not implement it.

They're not the only ones to blame for yet another childish, nonsensical, anti-consumer spat in web standardisation - Google is just as much to blame. This is what a Google engineer has to say on the matter:

No argument that PE is more elegant. If we had a path to universal input that all supported, we would be great with that, but not all browsers will support PE. If we had Apple on board with PE, we’d still be on board too.

Android is the biggest mobile platform, and Chrome is the most popular desktop browser. Had Google the stones, they'd implement Pointer Events and help paint Apple in a corner. They refuse to do so, thereby contributing just as much to this nonsense as Apple.

All this reeks of specifically wanting to hurt the web just because these companies are competitors elsewhere. Bunch of children.

Permalink for comment 605977
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Nil novi sub sole
by jemmjemm on Wed 25th Feb 2015 20:00 UTC
Member since:

Well, a prime example of the same thing happening before is something we saw during HTML5 video codec-game.

When some vendors preferred and pushed open-source implementations (WebM = VP8|VP9 + Vorbis|Opus), then others preferred patent-encumbered and non-free ones (and said they never will implement anything else). Mozilla, Google and Opera were in the first team and Apple in the other one. And Microsoft somewhere in between.

Then the same happened again in WebRTC standardization.

Quite some years (and a Cisco offer) have passed (and Google has encoded all Youtube content to both VP8 and VP9) and it still is a mess - there is no common implementation for HTML5 video and WebRTC.

Different parties are now developing the next generation of video codecs and the same seems to be happening again (and actually this time there will be 2 new opensource videocodecs: Daala and VP10). I have no idea how Apple will stand in that case.

The same situation is also in the choice of future picture-codecs. Open-source WebP (and a possible alternative by Mozilla) against BPG (where patent-status is unclear).

Edited 2015-02-25 20:13 UTC

Reply Score: 2