Rubbish. There are plenty of really cool use cases for this. For example combined with the physical web you can literally walk up to something, get a notification on your phone that it exists (yes there are spam concerns), tap the notification, and control it directly through your web browser. The device doesn't need internet connectivity and you didn't need to install an app.
That's great for one-off things that you only interact with once.
I wonder if it can improve the setup flow for devices like wireless speakers where there's a whole guided process for powering it on, pairing it, connecting to its wifi network, changing settings, etc.
>Make a real native app all the other decent people if you need this.
Who is going to pay for this? How many ideas will die because nobody can afford to pay for 3+ native developers across Windows/Mac/Linux? How many teams will decide to axe Linux support because it's not worth it?
Why develop natively when you can just hire one JS developer to write once, deploy anywhere?
Native apps failed to democratize the market. We are stuck with platform-specific applications that will remain intertwined with their vendor of choice presumably forever.
Well, I'd suppose if this becomes a web standard, it will come with an eventually stable API. And I wholeheartedly vote for "write a (lovely) webpage that still functions in a decade" over "write an app that might be (breaking) with the next generation of mobile phones (API changes, new OS,...)". Especially if I build any of that myself, and instead have some closed, physical thing I bought which depends on an external controller.
(parent can replace the "" with whatever he likes, but since I find swearing doesn't quite fit HN, I've put some more appropriate terms next to them)
> Make a real native app all the other decent people if you need this.
Eh, I'd much rather just visit a website where I have actual control (ublock, noscript, developer console) than download and install yet another native app black box.
