HenrikJoreteg
Joined 16 years ago
Joined 16 years ago
It's fine if they want don't want to implement everything.
The point is that if they don't get to simultaneously say:
1. The Web is a viable way to compete with native apps (which they explicitly said in defense in a current court case). 2. While not implementing features necessary to compete. 3. While not allowing anyone else to build a browser for iOS that implements the features necessary to compete.
Another interesting parallel between the two is that I implement a "loop" mechanism as well. Essentially, if no actions are fired for a while, and APP_IDLE action is dispatched which just updates "appTime" in redux store. As a result any selectors that depend on time as an input will recompute. This allows for actions to be fired over time based on age of the data, etc.
Elm and others are very cool. I just think a pure JS solution is nice, since that's what the browser runs.
I'm all for minimal server-side interactions once loaded too.
The point is that Apple's policies don't allow other browsers to actually compete on their platform. So users don't get to make the choice. All browsers on iOS have to be WebKit based by explicit policy that's the issue at hand.
It sounds like you like the default choice, and that's great for you. But if it's truly better, they shouldn't be scared to allow users to make a difference choice for themselves, no?