Which is why Firefox doesn't support it either.

Firefox's non-reasons are just as lame as Apple's non-reasons. These APIs aren't security risks, the user has to explicitly opt-in on every website that requests USB access, just like every other privacy-risky API that a website requests, like microphone and camera access. WebUSB is no different.

The only thing that has changed since camera and microphone access was allowed is that Apple now considers web apps to cut into their app store business, so they are unwilling to let any new APIs get approved that would make a web app as capable as a native app. This includes WebBluetooth and other APIs.

Apple is also getting sued by the DOJ for exactly this type of shady business practice.

And I don't really think what Firefox says is relevant, they are so cash-strapped I would not doubt that Apple pays them to have a negative opinion about new web APIs just so people like you can say "Firefox doesn't want it either".

The truth is there is no good reason to block WebUSB and WebBluetooth from becoming standards.

▲

Gigachad 3 days ago | parent [-]

The user gets spammed with a million permissions popups a day and has no idea what they are actually accepting or what the risks are. The same looking permissions popup usually means something incredibly trivial like notifications or camera, while the webusb spec is exposing you to potentially high risks of damage to hardware or data theft.

▲

leptons 3 days ago | parent [-]

>The user gets spammed with a million permissions popups a day and has no idea what they are actually accepting or what the risks are.

"A million" is quite the hyperbole. So let's just not do anything anymore because it might cause a permission popup? Or because some idiot might trust a scam website? That's your argument? Sorry, it's not a good argument.

>while the webusb spec is exposing you to potentially high risks of damage to hardware or data theft.

Please explain a realistic scenario where a website >that someone trusts< is going to "damage hardware or cause data theft".

I'll wait.

I don't care about someone's stupid grandfather that is going to find a way to get hacked one way or another - he's not a good reason to hold the rest of us back.

▲

Gigachad 3 days ago | parent [-]

That’s the source of the issue. Apple sells products that are safe for someone’s stupid grandfather. WebUSB is not safe for people who don’t understand the implications. Which is most people.

The rest can choose a different browser.

▲

Rohansi 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> WebUSB is not safe for people who don’t understand the implications. Which is most people.

Why? What is the worst that could happen? The user needs to choose which device(s) to allow access to and browsers do not allow access to all of them.

▲

leptons 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

>Apple sells products that are safe for someone’s stupid grandfather.

Then then they should be selling it in "grandfather mode". The rest of the non-stupid people that have iPhones (there are non-stupid people with iPhones, aren't there?) should be able to do what they want with their devices. But they can't because Apple puts profit over progress.

>The rest can choose a different browser.

Except on iOS you can't choose a different browser. Apple has blocked all other browsers on their mobile platform, so if you try to install Chrome, you're really just getting a Safari webview with a wrapper around it. It's just another example of abusive business tactics that the DOJ is suing Apple for.

▲

Gigachad 3 days ago | parent [-]

On iOS you can’t use usb anyway. Even an actual app can’t use usb outside of the wrapper APIs for file access and stuff. So it doesn’t really matter what safari supports here. And on macOS you can use any browser you want.

	▲	leptons 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		I don't care about WebUSB on iOS, but I do care about Apple blocking WebBluetooth on iOS, as well as blocking every other browser engine.