This piece by Kroc Camen was posted on Hacker News earlier this morning. Here is my response.
The web does not need to be embraced. Camen's main point is that "the web" will not be embraced by Apple. The web he refers to is the type of internet where everything is accessed through a "web browser", or program used to view files sent over the hypertext transfer protocol, or, in most cases, files sent using the file transfer protocol. This is obviously not the web where I can create my own protocol if I so wished, or use one of many different protocols that have been published.
The web has, and will continue to be embraced by Apple. Maybe not through the use of a browser to view anything and everything, but certainly through various applications that access the web. Right now, if I so wanted to*, I could use Colloquy to chat over IRC with some friends, or I could use some instant messaging app to chat with my friends on our xmpp server.
Camen holds up two examples of current technologies that Apple can easily stifle. These technologies are:
1. Google's pNaCl (Portable Native Client).
2. W3C Device API's
Essentially, Google's technology enables me to play non-flash games on my browser. Incredibly innovative, I'm sure, however, this isn't of use. PNaCl revolves around the idea that you can have native speeds, without downloading the application. I'm sorry, but that's complete bullshit. The only time I've had close to native speeds on an application with the web between me and the host computer is when I'm telnetting into some other server from that host - even a simple text-based irc client such as irssi gives me noticeable lag.
This is not because I have a slow connection. This is all about the fact that it takes light a certain amount of time to move from one place to another. At the distances sometimes covered over the internet, this time is significant, even the human brain can sense 50 milliseconds in lag.
So, I'm sorry Google, but, until you figure out how to send information faster than the speed of light, you can't compete with native clients, unless you're an mmorpg, in which case what are you trying to label yourself as?
The second example Camen brings up is the W3C device APIs. This is a technology that gives control of something like a webcam or a microphone to the browser. Never mind the fact that the majority of internet video watched today is uploaded after having been through at least some amount of time in an editing program (or room). This technology is actually useful, but not something I'd see the average user using - definitely not something I'd want on my iphone*. The cases for this being on the iphone is edge-case at best, and should therefore be relinquished to a non-web browser application.
Therefore, while the W3C Device API technology is somewhat worthwhile, it is edge-case at best. Most video is uploaded not-live, after having spent some time in the editing room. The live video can be used through a third-party application.
Therefore, Camen's examples aren't worthwhile. His entire point is wrong. Centralizing the web around the browser is a Bad Thing. Apple is following the Unix Philosophy - it is far better to have several programs that do one thing well than to have one program that does multiple things mediocrely.
tl;dr:
I'm an Apple fanboy.
* I don't have an iphone or ipod touch, it was just an example.
