I'm a bit worried that the UseCounter may be misleading. While the UseCounter is low, it's still about 2x the level we call "trivial" <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RC-pBBvsazYfCNNUSkPqAVpSpNJ96U8trhNkfV0v9fk/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.mqfkui78vo5z>. We've seen situations in the past where rare activities (eg. some specific aspect of payments or account creation) were nonetheless really critical to some sites. Our content does a pretty good job of explaining why this API is sometimes essential, and coincidentally just yesterday I had recommended it to someone who was complaining that the web lacked this important facility. Is Thomas correct that really you can't rely on being able to just use a SW for long-running background download tasks? Our compat principles <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RC-pBBvsazYfCNNUSkPqAVpSpNJ96U8trhNkfV0v9fk/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.x5bhg5grhfeo> cover this sort of case pretty clearly IMHO:
A change which can be trivially accounted for (such as by replacing a webkit-prefixed API name with the non-prefixed version) is generally considered to be lower risk than one which requires more effort. At the extreme end, a breaking change which takes away a capability (no matter how minor) which cannot be achieved by any other mechanism is generally considered high risk. To move forward I guess what I'd like to see is some feedback from developers who are actually using the Background Fetch API. Do they agree it's unimportant and they can replace it with something else? Or do some of them at least feel like the capabilities of their application would be significantly reduced without this API? Can we look at the HTTP Archive hit <https://mozaic.fm/> (which only tracks API use on page load by the way), some UKM UseCounters, and/or the ~100 hits in GitHub <https://github.com/search?q=%22.backgroundFetch.fetch%28%22+language%3AJavaScript+&type=code> to see if we can get any sentiment from web developers? Thanks, Rick On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 11:21 AM Alex Russell <[email protected]> wrote: > This capability was developed in conjunction with media app developers. > Have we heard from them? I'd also like to understand Jake Archibald's > perspective. > > Best, > > Alex > > On Wednesday, November 26, 2025 at 6:38:03 AM UTC-8 Mike Taylor wrote: > >> Is this a request to deprecate for some number of milestones then remove >> (if so, what is the proposed plan?), or just a straight removal? Could you >> clarify? Thanks. >> On 11/24/25 10:40 p.m., Chromestatus wrote: >> >> *Contact emails* >> [email protected] >> >> *Explainer* >> *No information provided* >> >> *Specification* >> https://wicg.github.io/background-fetch >> >> *Summary* >> Deprecates the Background Fetch API, which allows web applications to >> download large files in the background, even if the user navigates away >> from the page or closes the browser. Despite being available in Chrome >> since version 74, the Background Fetch API has not seen wide adoption by >> the developer community, with usage remaining consistently low, at less >> than 0.00002% of page loads as of November 2025. Given the low adoption >> rate and the significant engineering effort required to maintain the API >> and address ongoing security issues, it is being deprecated. Developers are >> encouraged to explore alternative solutions for managing large file >> downloads. >> >> *Blink component* >> Blink>ServiceWorker >> <https://issues.chromium.org/issues?q=customfield1222907:%22Blink%3EServiceWorker%22> >> >> *Web Feature ID* >> background-fetch <https://webstatus.dev/features/background-fetch> >> >> *Motivation* >> The Background Fetch API has been available in Chrome since version 74. >> However, it has not seen wide adoption. Usage metrics show that the feature >> is used in less than 0.00002% of page loads as of November 2025. Given the >> low usage, the ongoing engineering effort to maintain the Background Fetch >> API and address security issues is no longer justifiable. For developers >> who need to provide users with the ability to download large files, there >> are several alternatives: - For simple file downloads, developers can >> provide a standard download link. - For more advanced use cases, such as >> providing offline access to large files, developers can use the Fetch API >> within a Service Worker to download and cache the necessary resources. This >> approach provides developers with greater control over the user experience. >> >> *Initial public proposal* >> *No information provided* >> >> *TAG review* >> *No information provided* >> >> *TAG review status* >> Not applicable >> >> *Risks* >> >> >> *Interoperability and Compatibility* >> The interoperability risk of removing the Background Fetch API is low. >> The API has not been implemented by Firefox or Safari, and there have been >> no signals from either to indicate that they intend to do so. As a result, >> removing this API from Chrome will not cause interoperability issues, as it >> is not a feature that is part of the interoperable web platform. The >> compatibility risk is also minimal. Usage of the Background Fetch API has >> remained consistently low, at less than 0.00002% of page loads as of >> November 2025. Because of this extremely low usage, the number of websites >> that will be affected by this removal is very small. >> >> *Gecko*: No signal ( >> https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/30) >> >> *WebKit*: No signal ( >> https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/149) >> >> *Web developers*: No signals >> >> *Other signals*: TAG: https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/279 >> >> *Ergonomics* >> The Background Fetch API is tightly coupled with the Service Worker API. >> It is accessed through the backgroundFetch property of a >> ServiceWorkerRegistration object. Developers using this API would also >> likely use the Fetch API to create the Request objects for the download and >> the Cache API to store the downloaded responses. The API is designed to be >> asynchronous and to operate in the background. The main fetch() method >> returns a Promise, and the download process is managed by the browser, off >> the main thread. This design avoids blocking the main thread and is >> intended to improve performance and battery life for large downloads >> compared to keeping a service worker alive for a long-running fetch. >> Therefore, the API's usage does not inherently pose a performance risk that >> would make it difficult for Chrome to maintain good performance. The >> deprecation is due to low adoption and high maintenance cost, not because >> of ergonomic or performance issues in its design. >> >> *Activation* >> This change is a deprecation and removal of an existing API. The primary >> risk is the impact on developers who are currently using the Background >> Fetch API. However, the "activation" risk for this removal is minimal. The >> API has seen extremely low adoption since its introduction in Chrome 74, >> with usage below 0.00002% of page loads. This indicates that very few >> developers will be required to take action. >> >> *Security* >> The removal of the Background Fetch API reduces the overall attack >> surface of the browser and mitigates existing security issues associated >> with maintaining the feature. >> >> *WebView application risks* >> >> Does this intent deprecate or change behavior of existing APIs, such that >> it has potentially high risk for Android WebView-based applications? >> *No information provided* >> >> >> *Debuggability* >> *No information provided* >> >> *Will this feature be supported on all six Blink platforms (Windows, Mac, >> Linux, ChromeOS, Android, and Android WebView)?* >> No >> >> *Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests >> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/testing/web_platform_tests.md>?* >> No >> >> >> *Flag name on about://flags* >> *No information provided* >> >> *Finch feature name* >> BackgroundFetch >> >> *Rollout plan* >> Will ship enabled for all users >> >> *Requires code in //chrome?* >> False >> >> *Tracking bug* >> https://crbug.com/460293588 >> >> *Estimated milestones* >> Shipping on desktop 146 >> Shipping on Android 146 >> Shipping on WebView 146 >> >> *Anticipated spec changes* >> >> Open questions about a feature may be a source of future web compat or >> interop issues. Please list open issues (e.g. links to known github issues >> in the project for the feature specification) whose resolution may >> introduce web compat/interop risk (e.g., changing to naming or structure of >> the API in a non-backward-compatible way). >> *No information provided* >> >> *Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status* >> https://chromestatus.com/feature/5074579353632768?gate=6606728540061696 >> >> This intent message was generated by Chrome Platform Status >> <https://chromestatus.com>. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "blink-dev" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To view this discussion visit >> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/6925253c.050a0220.107b62.0899.GAE%40google.com >> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/6925253c.050a0220.107b62.0899.GAE%40google.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "blink-dev" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/0787a736-c17f-497b-979c-eb50355086b9n%40chromium.org > <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/0787a736-c17f-497b-979c-eb50355086b9n%40chromium.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAFUtAY90RfbvgO%2BTX_TsFfqn5iOmi5Q7-1k3Qn7Fwy5DmxJe4A%40mail.gmail.com.
