[HN Gopher] Chrome 89 Beta: Advanced Hardware Interactions, Web ...
___________________________________________________________________
Chrome 89 Beta: Advanced Hardware Interactions, Web Sharing on
Desktop, and More
Author : pjmlp
Score : 66 points
Date : 2021-01-31 21:02 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.chromium.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.chromium.org)
| dheera wrote:
| > Web Serial API
|
| I built various web interfaces to BLE devices and use the web BLE
| API but the biggest annoyance is having to select the device
| every time interactively. I really wish it were possible to
| "remember" access to devices that have already been given
| permission in the past. I wonder if the Web Serial API can do
| this over Bluetooth ...
| tyingq wrote:
| I had a tech support job where one repeated irritation was end
| users that had removed and reinserted a USB to Serial device.
| Windows then randomly assigns COM92, or whatever. Now you have
| to walk the customer through figuring out what COM port got
| assigned.
| taf2 wrote:
| I agree - I can't wait for the query permissions API, I believe
| that has specs to solve this problem... Check it out here:
| https://webbluetoothcg.github.io/web-bluetooth/#permission-a...
| bsimpson wrote:
| When I hear "serial," my mind goes to those 9-holed round ports
| on the back of a computer in the 90s. Didn't pay any attention
| to that section until I read your comment. Thanks for the
| nudge.
| msoad wrote:
| It's ironic that this page is using a GIF image instead of video.
| It is suppose to be the forefront of web tech advancement
| yegle wrote:
| Chrome 89 also fixed a bug on Android that caused unreliable
| Autofill popup.
|
| https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=101494...
| is the bug.
| baybal2 wrote:
| Now it's perfect, so now, Sergey will let people to pwn your 3D
| printer over the browser?
|
| Even IE6 was not such a security model garbage. Even ActiveX did
| not let the browser talk to hardware directly.
| ArmandGrillet wrote:
| Tangentially related: if you have noticed that the CPU of your
| Mac is going crazy since the release of Chrome 88, a fix will be
| out on Tuesday:
| https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=115279...
| RedComet wrote:
| I don't care for most of that. But what's unlisted is the fix for
| android autofill that is landing with it.
| catchmeifyoucan wrote:
| Web serial seems awesome! The ability to interface Hobbyist
| devices without the Arduino IDE (which I hope will work here) is
| one step closer to everything on web as a universal platform
| frongpik wrote:
| Very cool. How's uBlock Origin support? It's funny how these days
| I have to check before upgrading that uBO won't be crippled.
| dstaley wrote:
| There currently is no public date for the deprecation of
| Manifest v2 extensions, so I think you'll be fine with uBlock
| Origin for a while to come.
| taf2 wrote:
| Super excited to see WebHID landing! I have code to control
| lights via a browser application and finally will be able to
| release this!
|
| Also NFC support is huge - I can imagine all kinds of neat
| activation features for a website. Imagine sending a flyer in the
| mail with an NFC chip built in and then having a webpage verify
| based on this... Lot of really neat IOT apps that can be created
| with this feature...
|
| BLE is amazing and I really wish we had the query permissions
| API... since that would allow for heart monitors and other
| permeant native app like experiences...
| m00dy wrote:
| I think it is mostly for cloud gaming
| taf2 wrote:
| I think it's also for call centers... which employee a lot of
| people... think head phones, even specialized hardware
| buttons to answer phone calls, place calls on hold etc... and
| being able to distribute the software part all via the web...
| WebRTC and WebHID - will be very happy together...
| gregsadetsky wrote:
| Is there some information on the "bandwidth"/latency of WebHID
| devices? Specifically, could it work with a low resolution-ish
| video feed?
|
| I'm specifically thinking of a very niche type of device,
| specifically an inexpensive VGA/analog video capture usb
| "stick" called "EasyCap". This particular name has been re-used
| by many manufacturers who all sell EasyCaps with different
| chips in them, which makes finding a working driver a complete
| nightmare across almost all operating systems.
|
| After much research, it turns out that Linux had native support
| for the chip in my EasyCap, and I was able to capture video
| using ffmpeg (under VirtualBox running on macOS). Happy to
| share notes! (reply here or email me)
|
| Insane list of different drivers for EasyCaps under Windows:
| https://visser.io/2015/06/easycap-drivers-for-windows-8-1/
| ("Below is a link to the Windows 7 drivers that were compatible
| with my EasyCAP device and further down a list of other EasyCAP
| drivers you can try.")
|
| Info on existing versions/chips & Linux support:
| https://www.linuxtv.org/wiki/index.php/Easycap ("It seems that
| EasyCAP is not a company or brand name, but some chinese
| manufacturers use this label for at least four completely
| hardware different clones of equally looking audio and video
| capture devices. EasyCAP devices and clones are vastly sold in
| onlineshops at low prices.")
| voltagex_ wrote:
| HID is not built for that kind of use.
| gregsadetsky wrote:
| Thanks! HID in general? WebHID? Is it a bandwidth/data
| limitation? Something enforced by Chrome?
| Aaargh20318 wrote:
| Reading the justification for WebHID I get the feeling I'm
| missing something:
|
| > There is a long tail of human interface devices (HIDs) that
| are too new, too old, or too uncommon to be accessible by
| systems' device drivers. The WebHID API solves this by
| providing a way to implement device-specific logic in
| JavaScript.
|
| > (...)
|
| > The inability to access uncommon or unusual HID devices is
| particularly painful, for example, when it comes to gamepad
| support. Gamepad inputs and outputs are not well standardized
| and web browsers often require custom logic for specific
| devices. This is unsustainable and results in poor support for
| the long tail of older and uncommon devices.
|
| So instead of only having to implement support for these
| devices once (in the browser), they now expect every website
| that would need support for these kind of devices to write
| their own code to handle all these 'long tail' input devices ?
|
| How does that not make the problem infinitely worse ?
|
| Instead of convincing one party to implement and support the
| code to handle your obscure HID, now you beee to convince
| potentially millions of websites. All running different
| implementations with their own unique bugs and issues.
|
| This sounds less like an effort from the Chrome team to add
| support for these devices and more like a way to make it
| someone else's problem.
| foota wrote:
| It's not like every device will or could be supported
| reasonably by a browser. This allows support to be done by
| those who care about it.
| ksec wrote:
| NFC is going to be Great and could replace a lot of ugly QR
| Code usage.
|
| But NFC is currently locked on all iOS devices.
| Deathmax wrote:
| Core NFC has been available since iOS 11
| (https://developer.apple.com/documentation/corenfc). You
| don't have full access to implement for example contactless
| EMV payments, but you can read and write data to NFC tags.
| ksec wrote:
| OH wow. I stand Corrected. Thank You.
|
| I wish Safari implement something like WebNFC soon. I just
| dont like QR Code.
| baybal2 wrote:
| Except NFC readers are missing in a good portion of Android
| phones sold to countries where most of people live.
|
| Just through that alone, QR codes will be a default choice
| over NFC.
|
| NFC feel to be becoming a US version of FeliCa.
| 0xy wrote:
| Is the Chrome team still hellbent on killing ad-blocking with the
| half-baked Manifest changes that will render uBlock useless? How
| much longer will ad-blocking be supported?
| vbezhenar wrote:
| There's dedicated API to support url blocking. Some uBlock
| features might be unavailable, but most features can be
| implemented with new API.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| Web nfc excites me because I want to play with an idea where my
| kids earn tokens and add them to their score cards. But I don't
| want to put a whole mobile application together.
| afandian wrote:
| Call me cynical but with things like HID and NFC, this feels
| _very_ "embrace extend extinguish".
| SulfurHexaFluri wrote:
| The competition is already pretty much extinguished.
| eznzt wrote:
| The evergrowing scope of browsers, designed so only Google
| (and, by now, Mozilla, but only because Google allow them to
| exist) can create one and keep it updated.
| userbinator wrote:
| _and, by now, Mozilla, but only because Google allow them to
| exist_
|
| Why does Mozilla need permission from Google to exist? That
| sounds very very wrong.
| eznzt wrote:
| Because if Google stops paying them, they will go out of
| business.
| pjmlp wrote:
| It needs their money.
| kreeben wrote:
| >> but only because Google allow them to exist
|
| It is good that Google still allows Firefox to exist. I hope
| this love for my go to browser lasts. Every day I pray it
| will last. I'm scared though, because deep in my heart of
| hearts, I know it won't last.
| tpmx wrote:
| Yeah. Browsers are unfortunately OS:es now, finally realizing
| pmarca's dream of reducing Windows to a "poorly debugged set
| of device drivers".
| waingake wrote:
| Alan Kay reckons they aren't OS:es enough
| https://www.quora.com/Should-web-browsers-have-stuck-to-
| bein...
| tpmx wrote:
| Did that response give you any insight (besides the
| historical flashbacks, which are nice)?
| izacus wrote:
| So what's the other option? Apple world where browsers are
| crippled and everyone builds software for proprietary
| platforms with gatekeepers?
| tpmx wrote:
| Ther other path is to view browsers as viewers of sometimes
| dynamic documents. There is a certain power in limiting the
| amount of expressiveness in the web - it allows for a lot
| more creative repackaging.
|
| Unfortunately this path doesn't allow for much targetted
| advertising opportunities, so that's why Google et al
| wisely abandoned this path. ( /s )
| izacus wrote:
| Dynamic documents fundamentally can't achieve the
| usefulness of modern web applications though.
|
| The fact of the matter is that web still seems to be the
| last bastion of freedom where you have a decent chance of
| publishing your software without begging for approval
| from a Californian. It's also inherently portable and
| doesn't care which brand of laptop or phone did you buy.
|
| Which is why the rent seekers are trying so hard to
| dismantle it instead of empowering it.
| pjmlp wrote:
| ChromeOS is the end goal of Google, beware of the basket
| where you are putting your eggs on.
| tpmx wrote:
| I wish there could be a clear distinction between
| applications (like gmail) and web pages (like nyt).
| izacus wrote:
| I agree with you on that.
| tpmx wrote:
| 4 javascript devs disagree, apparently.
| userbinator wrote:
| I'd say 99% of sites out there don't need the "usefulness
| of modern web applications" at all. They are strictly
| linked sets of documents, with some interactivity through
| forms and such.
|
| _It 's also inherently portable and doesn't care which
| brand of laptop or phone did you buy._
|
| ...as long as it's running Google's software.
| josteink wrote:
| > Apple world where browsers are crippled
|
| I'm perfectly fine with crippled browsers. In fact I prefer
| them to be. Even current browsers are way beyond scope and
| IMO should be slimmed down.
| scrollaway wrote:
| What you're perfectly fine with is slimmer browsers.
| Crippled browsers, as in the ones in Apple's world, are
| browsers where the supported specs and features are
| selectively chosen for political / competitive reasons.
| It's absolutely not healthy.
| bla3 wrote:
| You don't understand what "extend embrace extinguish" meant.
| It's a tactic MS used to take control of a technology it, with
| the goal of making it unviable -- see the "extinguish' part.
| Back then, it was in Microsoft's interest that people used
| native windows apps to keep them in the MS ecosystem. The web
| was good for makers of other OSs like Apple. Nowadays, Apple
| tries to keep the web in lame duck mode for the same reason.
| Google wants the web to be powerful not to neuter it but
| because it's in their interest. You can argue if the web
| _should_ be an app platform, but applying "embrace extend
| extinguish" to Chrome misunderstands the motivation of Google.
| afandian wrote:
| I'm more interested in Firefox vs Chrome. I simply want to be
| able to use the web without using Google.
|
| By raising the bar on shiny but non-essential features, they
| make it harder for an open source browser to play. The new
| features may be fun options today but sooner or later those
| features will become standard, and website X won't work
| without Chrome.
|
| From TFA:
|
| > There is a long tail of human interface devices (HIDs) that
| are too new, too old, or too uncommon to be accessible by
| systems' device drivers
|
| I can easily imagine a banking website one day requiring
| custom USB drivers for security. Similar things happened with
| ActiveX and IE in the MS EEE days.
| userbinator wrote:
| Google's version of EEE is to churn the "standards"
| continuously by changing and adding to them rapidly to make
| it hard to even implement them, while also spreading widely
| the propaganda to cause developers to use the new parts ---
| even if not actually necessary. See all the static content
| sites turned into (increasingly often, Chrome-only) horrible
| SPAs.
|
| There's a reason the word "deprecate" occurs so ridiculously
| often in the web development --- Google's weapon of monopoly
| is _change_ : they are basically trying to outrun
| competitors. It's not Microsoft's proprietariness, but a
| brazenly open show of sheer power.
| scrollaway wrote:
| Occam's razor, and my familiarity with the industry, both
| tell me it's not malicious but rather just various shades
| of incompetence & misaligned incentives that are producing
| such high amount of "spec churn".
|
| But if it were a strategy, "EEE" or "Embrace Extend
| Extinguish" is not a good term for it. Maybe call it EEEE.
| "Extend Extend Extend Extend".
| mattkevan wrote:
| In Google's case it's perhaps EELIE, embrace, extend,
| lose interest, extinguish.
| kreeben wrote:
| >> Google wants Google to be powerful
|
| >> applying "embrace extend extinguish" to Chrome hits the
| nail on its head when it comes to the motivation of Google
|
| Fixed some things for you.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-31 23:00 UTC)