Thread

The Google Play app review process now regularly takes longer than a week

374 points · 352 comments · inputmice

wklm · 1789564599 · focus · HN ↗
Strong argument in favor of web vs native apps. If you need bluetooth on iOS checkout the web bluetooth iOS safari extension i've been working on recently: <a href="https://beacio.com" rel="nofollow">https://beacio.com
1. nchmy · 1789564846 · focus · HN ↗
  Yes, a truly Open Web is the solution that we need. It already works everywhere with a single codebase, and is more secure and private than native apps. But Apple prevents that by forcing all browsers to use terrible WebKit on iOS.
  Endless more information on all of this at
  <a href="https://infrequently.org/series/browser-choice-must-matter/" rel="nofollow">https://infrequently.org/series/browser-choice-must-matter/
  <a href="https://open-web-advocacy.org" rel="nofollow">https://open-web-advocacy.org
  1. CharlesW · 1789570009 · focus · HN ↗
    Note that Alex Russell is a Blink partisan, currently supporting Blink at Microsoft and formerly having done so at Google. Folks like that don't take kindly to the idea that a Blink monoculture might not be a great thing, and definitely do not share the opinion that it's critical to the open web that Apple not cede the open web to Blink.
    Remember, Blink began as Google's 2013 fork of WebKit. They've embraced and extended it, but thankfully the "extinguish" step is taking longer than they thought. This makes the "open web, as long as it's my engine" people upset.
    Safari's PWA support is not as complete as Chrome's today, but it's as good as Firefox's support and perfectly capable of supporting rich, standards-based apps. <a href="https://pwascore.com/" rel="nofollow">https://pwascore.com/
    nchmy · 1789571458 · focus · HN ↗
    The fact that your "argument" rests upon baseless ad hominem, I'm mostly inclined to not even respond.
    I'll simply say that if you bothered reading anything (let alone objectively), you'd clearly see that no one is arguing for a blink monoculture. They're arguing for allowing everyone to choose whichever browser and browser engine that you want. Safari included.
    The math isnt mathing on that site... And, no, safari is NOT capable of PWAs - which is the primary point of contention (not obscure APIs, though safari generally lags in all of that as well). They deliberately hobble PWAs and make them very difficult to install.
    edit: also, your site is just obviously biased/poorly done, because there exist many better comparisons of web features, which show how vastly far behind Safari is, often even of Firefox. This is unsurprising given your chosen style of rhetoric
    <a href="https://wpt.fyi/" rel="nofollow">https://wpt.fyi/
    <a href="https://webstatus.dev/" rel="nofollow">https://webstatus.dev/
    wklm · 1789573024 · focus · HN ↗
    True that. Apple has strong economic incentives to nerf PWAs, and I don't share their privacy concerns about web bluetooth. If anything, forcing users who need bluetooth to install shady third-party browsers creates way more risk. Based on beacio's download numbers, quite a few people would rather have web bluetooth available in their default browser.
    CharlesW · 1789573353 · focus · HN ↗
    It's not ad hominem since I'm critiquing their position, not their character. Their positions are public and well-documented, which is why it's important to point out the bias of what you linked to.
    > And, no, safari is NOT capable of PWAs…
    Incorrect, see my link. PWA installation on iOS is simple and idiomatic, and the same as it is for all websites: Share > Add to Home Screen.
    nchmy · 1789575935 · focus · HN ↗
    It is rare that someone voluntarily exposes their lack of insight and integrity so thoroughly... Kudos..?
    your argument amounts to "this person is incapable of being objective, let alone decent, because they work at xyz". Moreover, you literally didn't address a single thing presented in either link that i shared - which directly refute your nonsense. Pure ad hominem, and worse.
    You are not a serious person if you think that PWA installation is "simple and idiomatic on iOS". It is buried multiple menus, taps, drags etc... deep. Most chromium browsers present a button right in the address bar or at least conspicuously in the main menu. Moreover, they allow developers to ask for the ability to prompt users to install the app.
    <a href="https://adactio.com/journal/18252" rel="nofollow">https://adactio.com/journal/18252
    <a href="https://adactio.com/journal/22757" rel="nofollow">https://adactio.com/journal/22757
    Apple forces their employees to debase themselves in order to defend this status quo. eg:
    <a href="https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1245" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1245
    <a href="https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/619" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/619
    Take care. And keep that math not mathing!
    owebmaster · 1789582598 · focus · HN ↗
    > Incorrect, see my link. PWA installation on iOS is simple and idiomatic
    > Share > Add to Home Screen.
    Are you sure "share" is idiomatic here?
    Also calling a 6 steps process simple is laughable. One-click prompt to install is simple and part of PWA API that safari doesn't implement.
    mig39 · 1789576738 · focus · HN ↗
    >safari is NOT capable of PWAs... > They deliberately hobble PWAs and make them very difficult to install.
    Hit the share button, "Add to Home Screen" is very difficult to install?
    CharlesW · 1789577476 · focus · HN ↗
    > edit: also, your site is just obviously biased/poorly done
    If you can offer recommendations for data-based improvements, I'd sincerely appreciate it! It was made without any concern for Safari "winning", as is probably obvious since it has the lowest score. Methodology described here: <a href="https://pwascore.com/about" rel="nofollow">https://pwascore.com/about
    nchmy · 1789578506 · focus · HN ↗
    lol, not after you behaved so disgracefully here. at the very least, fix the math as i said more than once
    CharlesW · 1789578999 · focus · HN ↗
    The math is correct, see /about for methodology and this summary from the "How Scores Work" panel.
    About PWA Scores: • The main score shown is weighted for feature importance • Only stable (non-experimental) features are counted • Tap or hover any score to see: – Raw scores (simple % of supported features) – Experimental feature scores
    nchmy · 1789582804 · focus · HN ↗
    background capabilities is 0 for all browsers. there were other weird inconsistencies as well. We can completely leave to the side that your weighting scheme is surely arbitrary or perhaps even biased.
    CharlesW · 1789583550 · focus · HN ↗
    Because they're experimental. Since that's confusing even with a key, it may be better to hide experimental features/categories by default.
    > We can completely leave to the side that your weighting scheme is surely arbitrary or perhaps even biased.
    Hover on any number to see both "raw" and "with experimental/non-standard features" scores. If you do this to the overall score, you'll see that Firefox benefits the most from this.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.