I see WebUSB and I immediately think: "This is something that already exists in ChromeOS and Google wants to standardize it".

Chrome the browser is a stalking horse/test harness for ChromeOS.

I see irony in all this web functionality.

Back in the 90's if you wanted an ohms law calculator you had to go download a poorly written program from some random website. Network admins started locking down what you could download, run, and install due to security problems. Flash became a hit and they started piling on features in the browser so you could run things dynamically without having to download something.

Fast forward almost 30 years and the browser has become so full featured it is practically a weak OS sandbox that allows you to run just about anything. It was originally being extended to avoid that in the first place, and here we are almost back to square one.

The browser is basically the reinvention of the operating system. Its huge advantage is that it's built on the assumption that the user is trusted and the code isn't. In contrast most operating systems are designed on the assumption that code is absolutely trusted, but the user isn't. That's why rights management in Windows is concerned with who's allowed to access which file, while rights management in Firefox is concerned which which website is allowed to access the Webcam.

The big disadvantage of the browser is of course that there's huge competitive pressure, and most users prefer usability over security. Keeping things secure without asking the user about their intentions every step is a huge challenge (see also Windows UAC, which struggles with the same problem).

> Its huge advantage is that it's built on the assumption that the user is trusted and the code isn't. In contrast most operating systems are designed on the assumption that code is absolutely trusted, but the user isn't.

It's not necessarily an advantage, it's just a different threat model. An OS is protecting against an attacker already having access to the system (whether physically or over network.) The assumption is that the system is working properly and it's the operator that is malicious.

For the browser, the assumption is that the operator is working properly, but the systems they will be accessing are malicious.

The browser security measures are like a guard at the castle gate, allowing or preventing people from entering. The OS security is like locks on the doors inside the castle so that only people with the right keys can get into various protected rooms.

Both are necessary because they're preventing different things (access to the system vs. access once you're already inside the system.)

yes, because for most user choosing between security and functionality is not a choice they are prepared to reason about.

I'm no expert, but I am computer savvy. My experience is that more security ALWAYS limits functionality that I want. I get around it all with VMs and snapshots. I have totally wide open VMs that have no host access and just reset to the snapshot when I shut them down. the irony is that it is not only harder to choose functionality today, when you want it, but also harder to choose security. The choices are made for you. it is infuriating.

dont these features allow web apps to compete with native mobile apps? I really don't like the app or play store... so if that is one way to get away from them, that is a good thing.

...we are screwed.