For any of this to work, and I'm sure we're all in agreement–we *must* focus on standards. In my opinion, and that of many web developers trying to ship products to real users, to be considered a success, we need more than one browser to implement these standards [1]. With standards, the developer community, businesses, everyone, can build the products and integrations that give all users a choice. Without that, what can they choose? Wouldn't we have just built another silo?
If something we want to do doesn't fit with the existing web sandbox - we need to figure out how we can work within those constraints, or re-evaluate with the wider community why those constraints exist, and whether they should exist at all for a particular use case. If they don't fit, then we shouldn't try a proprietary "moz" approach in the platform. I'm worried that if we don't think about the wider community and how this fits into the web platform, connected devices at Mozilla will have the same fate as Firefox OS. I'm wondering what the next steps for FlyWeb is in terms of standardisation? It looks like it will be an essential part of the interoperable platform we want to build. [1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/notifications/ or http://www.w3.org/TR/service-workers/ <http://www.w3.org/TR/presentation-api/> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:12 PM, Fabrice Desré <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12/16/2015 11:12 AM, David Flanagan wrote: > > > I'm still not sure I get this part: > > > > However, I'm fine with using > > 3rd party apps to get visualization & analysis of my data. That means > > pulling their code to run it on my data, instead of pushing my data > to > > them. Also, that means getting the code to run in a sandbox that > doesn't > > leak back to the 3rd party. > > > > It sounds like what you're describing is downloading software and > > installing it locally, just like we used to do before the Web. But > > you're also adding a sandbox so that these third party apps can't > > communicate over the internet (just like the apps in the days before the > > internet). Is the privacy sandbox the thing that is new here? (And is > > that what we have now with locally-installed packaged apps that have > > device storage permission?) > > Indeed, before the web we had more control as users but it was much > harder to reach users for developers. The web changed that for the > better from a developer point of view, at the expense of user's control > over its data in general. The sandbox is an way to reconcile both > worlds. It's hard to imagine that you can guarantee strong privacy > without strong sandboxing or high trust in general. > > > Sandboxed apps like this presumably can't be supported by advertising. > > So an app ecosystem would have to involve users actually paying for > > their software, right? > > That's an option, yes. But easy payment on the web is still an unsolved > problem which is hurting it a lot compared to native silos, so if we can > make progress on that topic that's a win. However I'm not sure why these > apps could not use advertising too - their UI will be displayed in a > browser anyway. > > Fabrice > -- > Fabrice Desré > b2g team > Mozilla Corporation > _______________________________________________ > dev-fxos mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxos >
_______________________________________________ dev-fxos mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxos
