
Platform Adjacency Theory - based2
https://infrequently.org/2020/06/platform-adjacency-theory/
======
sradman
Adjacency Theory is an explanation of the conflict surrounding Project Fugu;
native APIs for the web. Antagonistic trade-offs seems like the explanation to
me: Google/Microsoft/Samsung want enhanced PWA/ChromeOS apps while
Apple/Mozilla want to maintain a safe sandbox.

~~~
onli
Right. And it does not discuss those tradeoffs. Ignoring that every time steps
like these were taken (Java applets, activeX, webgpu, outlooks enhanced
emails) it was security disaster is not a good sign.

There is some mention of risks in the footnote 3, focusing on privacy, but
that's not at all sufficient. And placing it in a footnote is telling on its
own.

~~~
anoncareer0212
There are several mentions of privacy and tradeoffs before that footnote, the
main argument that stuck with me was that _we don't except those tradeoffs
from native_. It was very telling that Safari is open to implementing APIs if
they magically don't require permission dialogs (looking at you, macOS), and
that was specifically called out in the article.

------
throwaway_pdp09
Ok, I'll bite:

> TL;DR: Does it matter if the web platform adds new capabilities?

yes

> And if it should, which ones?

dunno.

> The web is a meta-platform.

Why a met-platform and not just a platform?

> Like other meta-platforms

such as?

> the web thrives or declines to the extent it can accomplish the lion's share
> of the things we expect most computers to do.

This presumes a web browser is intended to do "the things we expect most
computers to do", but it could be fairly said a web browser does strictly a
subset of "the things we expect most computers to do", and some might further
argue (right or wrong) that it should stay that way.

> Adjacency to the current set of capabilities provides a disciplined way to
> think about where to invest next when working to stave off irrelevance.

I think he's saying that we need extra functionality in the browser to do the
things he wants. I think.

> If distribution of runtimes is blocked, competition falters, and adjacent
> capabilities can go un-addressed. Ecosystem decline, and eventual collapse,
> follows.

"Do what I want or there will be DISASTER!"

> Apple and Mozilla posturing about risks from new capabilities is belied by
> accepted extant native platform risks.

We already have risks so I'm going to dismiss concern over extra risk that
will come with my desired extra functionality. (This is an awful sentence and
BTW 'posturing' is a weasel word).

> For different reasons, they are both working to cast the web in amber. We
> will all have lost a future worth wanting should they succeed.

"DISASTER, I tell you, DISASTER!"

tl;dr of the tl;dr is he wants new stuff in the browser and damn the
consequences. Best I can make out anyway.

~~~
anoncareer0212
Ergh, this is an egregiously bad comment

