Apple attempting to stop investigation into its practices involving browsers(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Apple attempting to stop investigation into its practices involving browsers
https://twitter.com/openwebadvocacy/status/1617802614149894144
350 comments
Fighting Apple's monopoly behaviour around Safari is not fighting for chrome.
Since you asked, Firefox is the browser to use if you do not want chrome.
Since you asked, Firefox is the browser to use if you do not want chrome.
As a Firefox user who is very upset with Apple for (clearly intentionally) lacking support for PWA features, I am still happy that Safari exists as a counter-weight to Chrome. Any contribution counts.
Nobody is arguing Safari shouldn't exist. They're arguing that Apple shouldn't get to force monopolize it on iOS even more aggressively than Microsoft was doing with IE 20 years ago.
Microsoft was hardly even aggressive about leveraging their OS monopoly to promote their Internet Explorer browser. All they did was switch from selling it as a separate product to giving it away for free in order to crush Netscape. And Microsoft made IE the default handler for web links. But they never did anything to prevent users from installing third-party browsers on Windows.
I guess we'd have to argue what "aggressive" means here, but what you describe as "all they did" can and has been found to be monopoly behavior and against the law in the US. This is known as bundling and there are a bunch of prior cases which confirm it can be considered a violation of antitrust law. The bundling concept was the basis of the antitrust lawsuits against Microsoft in the late 90s.
That said, Apple is doing something worse with Safari, in that not only are they bundling the browser, they are using their tight control over the operating system to prevent other browsers from being installed in the first place. It's slighly murkier than the MS antitrust case because the counter-argument is "but they do allow other browsers! You can see Chrome/Firefox/Brave/etc in the App Store!" and then you have to get into a technical discussion of the difference between a browser application and a browser engine.
Sigh.
That said, Apple is doing something worse with Safari, in that not only are they bundling the browser, they are using their tight control over the operating system to prevent other browsers from being installed in the first place. It's slighly murkier than the MS antitrust case because the counter-argument is "but they do allow other browsers! You can see Chrome/Firefox/Brave/etc in the App Store!" and then you have to get into a technical discussion of the difference between a browser application and a browser engine.
Sigh.
Describing what Microsoft did as "bundling" seems a little silly in retrospect. I mean of course a desktop OS should come with a browser. If they had just added IE as a standard feature of Windows from the start without ever selling it as a separate product then they would have had a stronger legal case. It would be absurd for antitrust regulators to prohibit software vendors from enhancing their products just for the sake of protecting competitors' revenue.
> I mean of course a desktop OS should come with a browser.
This was not that obvious in the 1990s.
> It would be absurd for antitrust regulators to prohibit software vendors from enhancing their products just for the sake of protecting competitors' revenue.
This is absolutely a situation where a bundling case could apply, if a large incumbent uses their monopoly power in one product area to enter another and unfairly compete. IANAL but I don't believe whether or not the product was available separately or not would factor much into such a case.
This was not that obvious in the 1990s.
> It would be absurd for antitrust regulators to prohibit software vendors from enhancing their products just for the sake of protecting competitors' revenue.
This is absolutely a situation where a bundling case could apply, if a large incumbent uses their monopoly power in one product area to enter another and unfairly compete. IANAL but I don't believe whether or not the product was available separately or not would factor much into such a case.
It's not bundling because a web browser is a part of a operating system. For the same reason it's not bundling if their operating system contains a scheduler or network drivers
> a web browser is a part of a operating system
This was not at all the case in the 90s during the period of MS antitrust action.
> For the same reason it's not bundling if their operating system contains a scheduler or network drivers
There is a robust market (even today) for web browsers, and the makers of browsers make millions of dollars in revenue from their products. Therefore, I disagree, and I believe the bundling concept could still apply today to browsers. Network drivers and schedulers are not at all the same, because there isn't much of an independent market for them.
This was not at all the case in the 90s during the period of MS antitrust action.
> For the same reason it's not bundling if their operating system contains a scheduler or network drivers
There is a robust market (even today) for web browsers, and the makers of browsers make millions of dollars in revenue from their products. Therefore, I disagree, and I believe the bundling concept could still apply today to browsers. Network drivers and schedulers are not at all the same, because there isn't much of an independent market for them.
It was more than that. Microsoft was giving IE special APIs that it wasn't letting others have, and was also deeply integrating IE into the broader OS (eg, embedding it into the file explorer)
Which is also what Apple is doing but then going even further and just outright banning other browser engines.
Which is also what Apple is doing but then going even further and just outright banning other browser engines.
Eh, we could still write a browser that interfaced with those special APIs, albeit in a hidden fashion.
And even without them, we could write a browser and distribute to people so they could install it.
That cannot be said about iOS.
And even without them, we could write a browser and distribute to people so they could install it.
That cannot be said about iOS.
... and that was enough to completely destroy competition, and get a near monopoly for many years. Clearly amoral move enough that they got slapped with quite a big anti-competition fine from EU for this.
[deleted]
As a Firefox user on Linux I'm about to switch honestly. The browser is in a terrible state on Linux in terms of performance.
There is video playback on without fan noise (Chromium) or a very audible fan noise on Firefox (Notebook & Steam Deck + Fedora/Pop/Arch/Ubuntu) => More use of power resulting in less time for me.
Switching to Linux resulting in me ditching my forever browser Firefox is something I would not have guessed.
There is video playback on without fan noise (Chromium) or a very audible fan noise on Firefox (Notebook & Steam Deck + Fedora/Pop/Arch/Ubuntu) => More use of power resulting in less time for me.
Switching to Linux resulting in me ditching my forever browser Firefox is something I would not have guessed.
You might want to check out that it's using hardware acceleration properly, and that's it's configured correctly to use wayland if you're on wayland.
Personally, I bounce between macOS, Windows and Linux (mostly Linux, with Wayland), between Chrome, Edge, Firefox, Safari (mostly Firefox), and also between laptops/desktops and Firefox on Linux is consistently the fastest one with the least amount of crashes for me. Also the combination that lets me get the most battery life out of my laptop.
Personally, I bounce between macOS, Windows and Linux (mostly Linux, with Wayland), between Chrome, Edge, Firefox, Safari (mostly Firefox), and also between laptops/desktops and Firefox on Linux is consistently the fastest one with the least amount of crashes for me. Also the combination that lets me get the most battery life out of my laptop.
> Firefox on Linux ... the combination that lets me get the most battery life out of my laptop.
If you've managed to get battery life from Linux and Firefox even remotely near default fresh install of MacOS and Safari, you should write that up and post the link to it on HN.
If you've managed to get battery life from Linux and Firefox even remotely near default fresh install of MacOS and Safari, you should write that up and post the link to it on HN.
My laptop only uses Windows and Linux, only Apple hardware I have is desktop. But makes sense that Safari gets best battery time on Apple laptops, friends with Apple laptops says the same.
I think it'd be worth reading how you got your Linux machine to behave itself though. Any time I've tried to run Linux on a laptop (even a supposedly well-supported Dell laptop) it's been a buggy mess.
Then again, Windows was even worse. It was constantly waking itself up in a cramped bag, where it would try to forcibly install updates, overheat, drain the entire battery, then shut down and need to charge for 30 minutes just to light up at all. At which point it would boot into the recovery menu since it botched an update and needed to try again.
Then again, Windows was even worse. It was constantly waking itself up in a cramped bag, where it would try to forcibly install updates, overheat, drain the entire battery, then shut down and need to charge for 30 minutes just to light up at all. At which point it would boot into the recovery menu since it botched an update and needed to try again.
So why not just run Linux in a VM? According to your description, the hardware isn't working correctly natively when running the OS on bare metal, and that's always been the reason people say against using a VM. They want the native performance, but in your case, native sux.
>"You might want to check out that it's using hardware acceleration properly, and that's it's configured correctly to use wayland if you're on wayland."
Maybe it should be browser's task to do it. As a user I just do not want to waste my time on things like that unless they're vital. In this case I'll just use different browser.
Maybe it should be browser's task to do it. As a user I just do not want to waste my time on things like that unless they're vital. In this case I'll just use different browser.
Takes time to migrate to a completely new display manager :) For now it's opt-in, in the future it'll obviously be default if you're on Wayland.
If you don't like bleeding edge, warts or sometimes unpolished experiences, might be better to go with Windows or macOS, no one would blame you.
If you don't like bleeding edge, warts or sometimes unpolished experiences, might be better to go with Windows or macOS, no one would blame you.
I use both Windows and Linux. Linux runs on server and workstation class hardware dedicated for deployment mostly so the last thing I care about is what / how browsers run on those.
So you don't run browsers on Linux, I don't see what you have a problem with then? The particular issue you're complaining about doesn't seem to affect you at all.
Where did you see me complaining about the issue? I just stated my opinion that it should be in general task of the software to figure out the environment it is running under and adjust accordingly.
> Maybe it should be browser's task to do it.
Unfortunately you don't really get that luxury if you use Linux.
Unfortunately you don't really get that luxury if you use Linux.
That's completely fair. The reason that everyone is half-in on Wayland is likely because it's not yet default on Ubuntu. That, and Gnome window decorations.
Running Linux on a desktop pretty much guarantees that you have an endless parade of small problems to fix.
I really wish this weren't true, but the user experience has barely improved in the past 15-20 years. The specific problems may be different, but it's still the same struggle.
I really wish this weren't true, but the user experience has barely improved in the past 15-20 years. The specific problems may be different, but it's still the same struggle.
To add to that,
Firefox sandboxing on Linux is awful.
https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/firefox-chromium.ht...
https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/firefox-chromium.ht...
Please try to resist. I bought an external battery, it's less convenient but if that's the cost of privacy then so be it. Supporting Mozilla/Firefox/Thunderbird is critical, some sites are now chrome-only, this is a nightmare. The battle for a free phone is already lost it seems as banks mandate google or iphone apps for 2FA and we don't have functional linux-only phones with browsing/email/mapping/sms/calls/photos that work reliably yet. I'm truly concerned we might loose the ability to use a linux desktop too: MS-Windows was required for many things in the past, these things are now possible on Linux, I'd hate to see Chrome become the next Windows.
Are you running a distro provided build or one downloaded from mozilla?
Firefox notoriously has bad performance on Linux compared to Chromium. Chromium does a pretty good job at implementing new hardware acceleration features while Firefox just got around to it like a year ago and it is still no where as performant. There is noticeable delays for me on Firefox when doing things like resizing windows in a tiling window manager as well.
That's weird, I use Mac (x86) and Linux (x86 Debian) and Firefox works great on Linux but is unusable on Mac (at least it was two or so years ago when I last tried).
I have an nvidia card and non free drivers if that matters
I have an nvidia card and non free drivers if that matters
Firefox has improved a lot on mac in the last two years. It's still less battery efficient than Chrome, but not by too much anymore. I've just switch for it's better tab management features (tab groups).
While based on chrome without the privacy issues, I'd highly recommend Vivaldi browser (the company is also a worker co-op). They removed a lot of proprietary stuff too from the source.
Do you mean "upset with Mozilla"? The PWA Wikipedia article claims that Safari has better PWA support than Firefox.
Per [1], PWAs on webkit lacks push notifications, full-screen display, hardware acceleration, web bluetooth as major headline features needed, which Firefox on mobile appears to generally support per a 5-second glance (I didn't see web bluetooth, but the rest I did) [2].
That wikipedia page has a support table saying IOS supports PWAs as YES and Firefox as NO is odd considering Apple requires Mozilla to ship a crippled form of safari on IOS, if Firefox could ship their own true application, I suspect they would have better PWA support as a differentiator with Safari.
[1] https://thenewstack.io/owa-takes-on-apples-browser-ban-for-p...
[2] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Progressive_web...
That wikipedia page has a support table saying IOS supports PWAs as YES and Firefox as NO is odd considering Apple requires Mozilla to ship a crippled form of safari on IOS, if Firefox could ship their own true application, I suspect they would have better PWA support as a differentiator with Safari.
[1] https://thenewstack.io/owa-takes-on-apples-browser-ban-for-p...
[2] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Progressive_web...
> web bluetooth as major headline features needed
"web bluetooth" and many other hardware APIs are Chrome-only non-standards that OWA pretends are standards and core features for PWAs.
"web bluetooth" and many other hardware APIs are Chrome-only non-standards that OWA pretends are standards and core features for PWAs.
If I’ve read correctly [1], Safari on macOS 13 (released after the mentioned article) supports the standardized Web Push APIs.
[1] https://developer.apple.com/documentation/usernotifications/...
[1] https://developer.apple.com/documentation/usernotifications/...
> Apple for (clearly intentionally) lacking support for PWA features
It's in Google's interest to replace native iOS apps with web apps.
It's in Apple's interest to replace web apps with native iOS apps.
Native apps also tend to be more power efficient and to present a platform-native look and feel.
I don't see any incentive for Apple to support PWAs (or Google's vision for web apps) ever.
It's in Google's interest to replace native iOS apps with web apps.
It's in Apple's interest to replace web apps with native iOS apps.
Native apps also tend to be more power efficient and to present a platform-native look and feel.
I don't see any incentive for Apple to support PWAs (or Google's vision for web apps) ever.
https://gs.statcounter.com/
Firefox is not a serious competitor at this point and its tiny 4% of the market has already slipped to 3% in the last year.
That’s inching close to the “can we please drop IE11” sort of numbers from some years ago.
Firefox is not a serious competitor at this point and its tiny 4% of the market has already slipped to 3% in the last year.
That’s inching close to the “can we please drop IE11” sort of numbers from some years ago.
Statcounter is in the list[0] firefox uses to block trackers, it also seems like Edge use the same list [1], so the 3% is more FF-users who are not using the build in tracking protection
[0]https://github.com/disconnectme/disconnect-tracking-protecti... [1]https://disconnect.me/trackerprotection#trackers-we-block
[0]https://github.com/disconnectme/disconnect-tracking-protecti... [1]https://disconnect.me/trackerprotection#trackers-we-block
Firefox doesn't block statcounter or other analytics trackers by default. You'd have to go into "Settings > Enhanced Tracking Protection" and change it from "Standard" ("Balanced for protection and performance. Pages will load normally.") to "Strict" ("Stronger protection, but may cause some sites or contact a break.") While I expect Firefox users are much more likely than users of other browsers to do this, I'd also expect a large majority leave settings at the default.
You can test behavior on this tracker here: https://www.jefftk.com/test/statcounter
You can test behavior on this tracker here: https://www.jefftk.com/test/statcounter
Thanks for the tester, on Firefox I just see:
<html><head></head><body><img src="https://statcounter.com/" vt9kpu8nj="">
</body></html>
Looking in the browser networking panel is probably the easiest way to see whether it actually sends a request.
The above poster is right. If you have uBlock Origin, it blocks it by default. I tested the following:
1. Plain install: Not blocked 2. With uBlock Origin: Blocked 3. Strict Enhanced Tracking Protection: Blocked 4. 2+3: Still blocked (unsurprisingly)
I would expect knowledgeable and concerned users (i.e. installing at least uBlock Origin) and people on systems managed by such people (e.g. family members of people in the first group who let that person manage their system) to be a higher percentage of Firefox users than other browsers.
I don't think Firefox has say a 10% share, but I do think that data derived from statcounter.com is going to underrepresent the share of Firefox users. As Google continues to make larger moves to fight ad-blocking, I expect that gap will widen.
1. Plain install: Not blocked 2. With uBlock Origin: Blocked 3. Strict Enhanced Tracking Protection: Blocked 4. 2+3: Still blocked (unsurprisingly)
I would expect knowledgeable and concerned users (i.e. installing at least uBlock Origin) and people on systems managed by such people (e.g. family members of people in the first group who let that person manage their system) to be a higher percentage of Firefox users than other browsers.
I don't think Firefox has say a 10% share, but I do think that data derived from statcounter.com is going to underrepresent the share of Firefox users. As Google continues to make larger moves to fight ad-blocking, I expect that gap will widen.
Yeah, there’s no way to account for everyone. It’s probably not fair to assume there’s a huge amount of untracked users. And Mozilla cops to the continuing decline as well:
> “Looking back five years and looking at our market share and our own numbers that we publish, there's no denying the decline,” says Selena Deckelmann, senior vice president of Firefox
https://www.wired.com/story/firefox-mozilla-2022/
> “Looking back five years and looking at our market share and our own numbers that we publish, there's no denying the decline,” says Selena Deckelmann, senior vice president of Firefox
https://www.wired.com/story/firefox-mozilla-2022/
If statcounter is in the list of blocked trackers, and trackers are blocked by default, then assuming there is a huge list of untracked users is only fair. Because it would be everyone not specifically disabling the tracking protection, which no one does. Statcounter would only count outdated FF installations that also do not use an adblocker (3% seems high for that, but not absurdly high).
But I'm not certain that this is the case. https://disconnect.me/trackerprotection claims to link to lists that show which trackers are only identified and which are identified and blocked, but those links just go to https://github.com/disconnectme/disconnect-tracking-protecti..., where I do not see such a distinction being made.
But I'm not certain that this is the case. https://disconnect.me/trackerprotection claims to link to lists that show which trackers are only identified and which are identified and blocked, but those links just go to https://github.com/disconnectme/disconnect-tracking-protecti..., where I do not see such a distinction being made.
Trackers are not blocked by default. You can verify this by visiting https://www.jefftk.com/test/statcounter in stock Firefox, and then again after setting "Enhanced Tracking Protection" to "Strict".
> If statcounter is in the list of blocked trackers, and trackers are blocked by default, then assuming there is a huge list of untracked users is only fair.
Did we see a massive drop in Firefox users when tracking protection was introduced?
Did we see a massive drop in Firefox users when tracking protection was introduced?
Are you suggesting that people shouldn't use it since it has a small market share, and thus should allow it to get smaller until it dies out?
Moreso that Safari truly is the only bastion against Chrome’s hegemony.
Safari is not competing. It only runs on MacOS and iOS. It doesn't compete on Linux, Windows or Android.
- It comes last out of the three major browser engines in feature support. - It has the most number of bugs out of the three engines. - It has the worst support for Web Apps.
Apple has deprived the Safari/Webkit team of funding for the past decade.
Safari places no competitive pressure on chrome, and has deprived Mozilla and thus Firefox of 100's of millions of dollars in search engine revenue. Apple has done untold damage to the web and this needs to be fixed.
- It comes last out of the three major browser engines in feature support. - It has the most number of bugs out of the three engines. - It has the worst support for Web Apps.
Apple has deprived the Safari/Webkit team of funding for the past decade.
Safari places no competitive pressure on chrome, and has deprived Mozilla and thus Firefox of 100's of millions of dollars in search engine revenue. Apple has done untold damage to the web and this needs to be fixed.
The point is that, even with all those flaws, developers have to target at least two browsers instead of just building for Chrome.
The force keeping Safari afloat is not the one keeping Firefox down, the problem is that Firefox has nothing to drive up its adoption. Telling people that they're "free" to use Firefox and see as the web is swallowed whole by Google with Chrome, like MS did with IE, is missing the point so badly.
The force keeping Safari afloat is not the one keeping Firefox down, the problem is that Firefox has nothing to drive up its adoption. Telling people that they're "free" to use Firefox and see as the web is swallowed whole by Google with Chrome, like MS did with IE, is missing the point so badly.
You're talking about lack of competition while defending corporate mandated lack of competition and undermining of the web. That's not how this works.
Unless you think of another solution, when the "it" is the web, we have nothing else that works, because antitrust regulators won't come down hard enough on Google for leveraging its dominant position in search and mail to corner the browser market, and use it as an ad delivery platform.
Sent from my Firefox install.
Sent from my Firefox install.
Firefox is almost no where to be found and hardly has anything to bring to fight against Chrome [0]. In fact, Mozilla is on life support with Google's money with the Mozilla CEO being the one laughing all the way to the bank as Firefox continues to be irrelevant.
Safari (WebKit) is the only one competing against the Chrome ecosystem, especially on mobile devices market. The EU Digital Markets Act will just declare Chrome the winner and will increase Chrome's dominance and will make Mozilla even more irrelevant.
[0] https://gs.statcounter.com/
Safari (WebKit) is the only one competing against the Chrome ecosystem, especially on mobile devices market. The EU Digital Markets Act will just declare Chrome the winner and will increase Chrome's dominance and will make Mozilla even more irrelevant.
[0] https://gs.statcounter.com/
Incorrect, Safari leads the pack on new feature support.
Running on Windows/Linux/Android fundamentally does not matter. Market share does.
Safari seems to rather build their own web then obey standards that both firefox and chrome are following. They are in many ways worse than chrome.
This is a very uncharitable assessment. They drag their feet on API support but they're still a part of the interop group and actually were more conformant by the end of last year on the targeted features than Chrome: https://wpt.fyi/interop-2022
There's a case to be made that they handicap PWA features, but I don't see their team directly implementing features incorrectly.
There's a case to be made that they handicap PWA features, but I don't see their team directly implementing features incorrectly.
But at the same time, there have been several cases where Mozilla and Apple have been on the same page in terms of feelings on a particular feature/change. In one of those cases Google bulldozed through and did their own thing anyway (see WebUSB).
> Safari seems to rather build their own web then obey standards that both firefox and chrome are following
wat. Firefox and Safari are more closely aligned on standards support than Chrome which pushes its own non-standards aggressively
wat. Firefox and Safari are more closely aligned on standards support than Chrome which pushes its own non-standards aggressively
Incorrect, Safari leads the pack on new feature support.
"The rich should get richer" is a common reasoning implement for the rich.
As it becomes more of a niche, also-ran browser, you can expect its quality (and so, its security) to fall as well.
The "use an inferior tool for philosophical reasons" mindset is already pretty unconvincing for me. A chromium fork maintained by a pro-user, pro-privacy team is the best of both worlds and doesn't expose you to Mozilla's fad-chasing.
The "use an inferior tool for philosophical reasons" mindset is already pretty unconvincing for me. A chromium fork maintained by a pro-user, pro-privacy team is the best of both worlds and doesn't expose you to Mozilla's fad-chasing.
Firefox is not an “inferior tool.” Its cookie segregation and CSS styling feature are not found in Chrome. I don’t use Firefox for moral reasons, I use it because it’s better.
Plus much as I'm very much and definitively unhappy about a lot of directions and decisions taken by the Firefox developers, Chrome's (and Edge's, too) address bar search alone is a no-go – it's positively amnesiac and frequently (with no discernible rhyme or reason) doesn't return even pages I've recently visited and that are definitively still in my browser history (and it's not for lack of space to display the results, because often it returns no local results at all!).
This is exactly the kind of problem that is a fork can solve when the upstream project can't or won't. I haven't used Chrome in years, but I do not notice the problem you describe in Brave.
This is assuming that their funding is dependent on their share of browser use, or that Mozilla would get bored of Firefox if it stays at a lower share, and move on to other projects.
These assumptions would be true of a for-profit entity like Google, Apple, Microsoft, but it's not as directly applicable to Mozilla.
These assumptions would be true of a for-profit entity like Google, Apple, Microsoft, but it's not as directly applicable to Mozilla.
I think the first assumption holds. There is a (conspiracy?) theory that Google's funding of Mozilla is based on a desire to avoid antitrust scrutiny. If Firefox usage continues to tumble, it ceases to be a meaningful competitor and the funding might be safely discontinued without legal consequences.
Mozilla exists as it does today entirely due to Google's largess.
Mozilla exists as it does today entirely due to Google's largess.
Does Firefox have a small market share compared to Chrome? Yes.
At the same time, Firefox has 200 million users. For perspective, that's just behind the population of Brazil, the world's seventh-most-populous country. It's hardly dead in absolute terms. It's hard to think of any open-source end-user application that's more widespread.
At the same time, Firefox has 200 million users. For perspective, that's just behind the population of Brazil, the world's seventh-most-populous country. It's hardly dead in absolute terms. It's hard to think of any open-source end-user application that's more widespread.
Statcounter has no chance to see my Firefox browsers on Linux and Android, because of uBlock Origin and Blockada.
Maybe they don't see as many Chrome browsers too, in percent. Maybe Firefox users are not the ones who block more tracking, who knows.
Maybe they don't see as many Chrome browsers too, in percent. Maybe Firefox users are not the ones who block more tracking, who knows.
If you are in favor of Chrome on iOS, then you are in favor of a Chrome monopoly, or you don't understand how browser monopolies work. Or maybe you weren't around during the browser wars (a lot of < 30s on HN).
This is a false dichotomy. Open competition is not an endorsement for monopolies.
First, can you explain how you came to interpret my particular statement as a universal one? It doesn't seem like a good faith reading. If you doubt that a Chrome monopoly results from Chrome on iOS, that's an argument you can make, but it doesn't look terribly plausible.
Second, your use of "open competition" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, suggesting that browser market share is determined by ordinary market forces (it's not) or that Apple isn't competing openly with Google already. Why would allowing the competitor's browser on your hardware be considered "open competition?" Again, it's not clear.
Second, your use of "open competition" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, suggesting that browser market share is determined by ordinary market forces (it's not) or that Apple isn't competing openly with Google already. Why would allowing the competitor's browser on your hardware be considered "open competition?" Again, it's not clear.
I tried to switch to Firefox as my main browser, but sadly the blocker for me was the absolutely horrible battery life on my Macbook Pro M1. It's like it's continuously running a spinning loop or something. It reduced my battery life to somewhere between 4 to 6 hours. I have since switched to Vivaldi (which is based on Chromium unfortunately), but I will probably switch back to Firefox if those battery issues are ever resolved.
If Firefox will focus _everything_ on making FF on MacOS reduce their batter consumption to the minimum possible (less than Safari should be the goal) then I think this is the only _winning strategy_ for FF not going into irrelevance.
not sure it is also possible to compete on battery performance with Safari but that is the only one I see. Drop any other project, any initiative and just focus on this.
Why:
1. Because there is a big chunk of developers who code web on MacOS thus winning them means what they build will run on MacOS
2. Becoming default for this group of technical people means they will recommend it for their families and more important install it for their young kids laptops
3. Can do it with Google money :)
not sure it is also possible to compete on battery performance with Safari but that is the only one I see. Drop any other project, any initiative and just focus on this.
Why:
1. Because there is a big chunk of developers who code web on MacOS thus winning them means what they build will run on MacOS
2. Becoming default for this group of technical people means they will recommend it for their families and more important install it for their young kids laptops
3. Can do it with Google money :)
There are approximately as many Firefox users are there are MacOS users, on the order of 200 million users. In fact, there are probably more Firefox users than MacOS users. Concrete numbers are hard to come by, but you have to take optimistic estimates of MacOS's userbase to match moderate estimates of Firefox's userbase. If Firefox is a global also-ran, then so is MacOS.
You might be right - I did not check the numbers.
My idea was primarily based on my experience is something like this:
I know (meaning I know what they use) around 15-20 devs on MacOS.
Almost all of them have FF installed. Some may open it occasionally but just as an alternative to open in private mode or check some weird behavior to see if it is cross-browser or cache related.
- personal usage: except maybe 2, all the others are using Safari (most of them) and Chrome few
- professional usage: except for the same 2, here I think Chrome is more used and Safari less
Thus in these developers' case, I don't think they will recommend FF to their friends or relatives even if FF is installed on their machine as it is not their daily driver.
I am in the same category regarding usage: I forced myself multiple times to use FF. Still try to do that couple of times per year.
But fallback to Safari because the battery lasts so much longer and because it is integrated with the MacOS keychain.
One might think that with M1, people might afford to lose a bit of battery but it is the reverse. Seeing how long it lasts one barely thinks of cutting those hours short :) Could mean starting to carry again the power adapter or always looking for a table near a power socket.
Here is a browser that I installed not long ago and start to like it more and more: https://browser.kagi.com
My idea was primarily based on my experience is something like this:
I know (meaning I know what they use) around 15-20 devs on MacOS.
Almost all of them have FF installed. Some may open it occasionally but just as an alternative to open in private mode or check some weird behavior to see if it is cross-browser or cache related.
- personal usage: except maybe 2, all the others are using Safari (most of them) and Chrome few
- professional usage: except for the same 2, here I think Chrome is more used and Safari less
Thus in these developers' case, I don't think they will recommend FF to their friends or relatives even if FF is installed on their machine as it is not their daily driver.
I am in the same category regarding usage: I forced myself multiple times to use FF. Still try to do that couple of times per year.
But fallback to Safari because the battery lasts so much longer and because it is integrated with the MacOS keychain.
One might think that with M1, people might afford to lose a bit of battery but it is the reverse. Seeing how long it lasts one barely thinks of cutting those hours short :) Could mean starting to carry again the power adapter or always looking for a table near a power socket.
Here is a browser that I installed not long ago and start to like it more and more: https://browser.kagi.com
Sure, and I'm not trying to defend the performance of Firefox on MacOS (I wouldn't know). But it's easy to see why it's not necessarily Mozilla's highest priority. Hell, there are probably more Firefox users on Windows XP than Firefox users on Linux (this may sound like hyperbole, but I know for a fact it was true as of no less than five years ago).
I don't think anyone would ever dispute numbers claiming macOS as an also ran level of numbers. They are the kind of numbers that only impress so someone can point to them to say that the other OS isn't a monopoly.
Power efficiency seems like an afterthought at both Google and Mozilla. I’m not sure what the reason is for Firefox, but with Chrome it like the vast majority of attention is soaked up by implementing the early draft spec of WebBananas or whatever to keep a steady stream of developer-enticing features rolling out than anything else.
It functionally is.
Many of those who have not learned from history are so anti-Apple (or possibly subpar webdevs) that they completely ignore the lessons we've previously learned about why browser monoculture is dangerous.
Even more worrisome, these people often ignorantly call Safari "the new IE", meaning they're aware of the history and problems and choose to pursue their own broken interpretation.
If these people will ignore a browser with 50% market share on mobile and 20% overall due to their own shortsightedness, clearly they're going to ignore Firefox or others hanging out in the single digits.
Many of those who have not learned from history are so anti-Apple (or possibly subpar webdevs) that they completely ignore the lessons we've previously learned about why browser monoculture is dangerous.
Even more worrisome, these people often ignorantly call Safari "the new IE", meaning they're aware of the history and problems and choose to pursue their own broken interpretation.
If these people will ignore a browser with 50% market share on mobile and 20% overall due to their own shortsightedness, clearly they're going to ignore Firefox or others hanging out in the single digits.
> Many of those who have not learned from history are so anti-Apple (or possibly subpar webdevs) that they completely ignore the lessons we've previously learned about why browser monoculture is dangerous.
I'm confused, because to me it seems that the pro-Apple folks are the ones ignoring the lessons from large corporations using their weight to force monocultures.
Firefox is the only meaningful browser that is open and won't be leveraged by its steward to promote their business interests.
I'm confused, because to me it seems that the pro-Apple folks are the ones ignoring the lessons from large corporations using their weight to force monocultures.
Firefox is the only meaningful browser that is open and won't be leveraged by its steward to promote their business interests.
Please read "Breaking the Web Forward" https://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2021/08/breaking_th...
--- sart quote ---
Back fifteen years ago IE held back the web because web developers had to cater to its outdated technology stack. “Best viewed with IE” and all that. But do you ever see a “Best viewed with Safari” notice? No, you don’t. Another browser takes that special place in web developers’ hearts and minds.
--- end quote ---
--- sart quote ---
Back fifteen years ago IE held back the web because web developers had to cater to its outdated technology stack. “Best viewed with IE” and all that. But do you ever see a “Best viewed with Safari” notice? No, you don’t. Another browser takes that special place in web developers’ hearts and minds.
--- end quote ---
Oh you're absolutely right about Chrome, I'm just not sure why you mention 'anti-Apple', because Apple's leverage is being used in many of the same ways, just much more aggressively than 'best viewed in IE', instead it's 'App Store/WebKit/<choose your monoculture> or pound sand'.
> I'm just not sure why you mention 'anti-Apple'
Said nothing about "anti-Apple". I'm just agreeing with the poster above saying that people being vehemently anti-Apple actually haven't learned anything from history. At all.
> Apple's leverage is being used in many of the same ways, just much more aggressively than 'best viewed in IE'
Of course this is bullshit. Again. There's probably not a single site out there that is "best viewed in Safari". And there are numerous sites that are "best viewed in Chrome". Including, especially, the ones that Google themselves (#1 search, #1 mail, #1 video hosting, #1 web ad business in the world) creates.
And to quote again:
--- start quote ---
Regardless of where you feel the web should be on this spectrum between Google and Apple, there is a fundamental difference between the two.
We have the tools and procedures to manage Safari’s disinterest. They’re essentially the same as the ones we deployed against Microsoft back in the day — though a fundamental difference is that Microsoft was willing to talk while Apple remains its old haughty self, and its “devrels” aren’t actually allowed to do devrelly things such as managing relations with web developers. (Don’t blame them, by the way. If something would ever change they’re going to be our most valuable internal allies — just as the IE team was back in the day.)
On the other hand, we have no process for countering Google’s reverse embrace, extend, and extinguish strategy, since a section of web devs will be enthusiastic about whatever the newest API is. Also, Google devrels talk. And talk. And talk. And provide gigs of data that are hard to make sense of. And refer to their proprietary algorithms that “clearly” show X is in the best interest of the web — and don’t ask questions! And make everything so fucking complicated that we eventually give up and give in.
--- end quote ---
Google releases 400 new APIs a year with little to no oversight and with complete disregard of any objections or concerns from the other browser vendors: https://web-confluence.appspot.com/#!/confluence
The things that you think Safari is lacking in are largely Chrome-only non-standards.
Said nothing about "anti-Apple". I'm just agreeing with the poster above saying that people being vehemently anti-Apple actually haven't learned anything from history. At all.
> Apple's leverage is being used in many of the same ways, just much more aggressively than 'best viewed in IE'
Of course this is bullshit. Again. There's probably not a single site out there that is "best viewed in Safari". And there are numerous sites that are "best viewed in Chrome". Including, especially, the ones that Google themselves (#1 search, #1 mail, #1 video hosting, #1 web ad business in the world) creates.
And to quote again:
--- start quote ---
Regardless of where you feel the web should be on this spectrum between Google and Apple, there is a fundamental difference between the two.
We have the tools and procedures to manage Safari’s disinterest. They’re essentially the same as the ones we deployed against Microsoft back in the day — though a fundamental difference is that Microsoft was willing to talk while Apple remains its old haughty self, and its “devrels” aren’t actually allowed to do devrelly things such as managing relations with web developers. (Don’t blame them, by the way. If something would ever change they’re going to be our most valuable internal allies — just as the IE team was back in the day.)
On the other hand, we have no process for countering Google’s reverse embrace, extend, and extinguish strategy, since a section of web devs will be enthusiastic about whatever the newest API is. Also, Google devrels talk. And talk. And talk. And provide gigs of data that are hard to make sense of. And refer to their proprietary algorithms that “clearly” show X is in the best interest of the web — and don’t ask questions! And make everything so fucking complicated that we eventually give up and give in.
--- end quote ---
Google releases 400 new APIs a year with little to no oversight and with complete disregard of any objections or concerns from the other browser vendors: https://web-confluence.appspot.com/#!/confluence
The things that you think Safari is lacking in are largely Chrome-only non-standards.
My comments in this thread are almost exclusively about the odd assertion in my parent that somehow 'anti-Apple' folks are the ones who have ignored history's lessons about monocultures. I'm not presenting this as an Apple <-> Google dichotomy; in fact nearly the opposite, both companies are fighting for monocultures that they control, just in slightly different domains. Apple wants to control the client platform, Google wants to control the web. Neither is good for users. It's very odd to me that someone would frame this discussion as 'anti-Apple' people missing the point. I won't speak for others, but I, as an anti-Apple person, am absolutely vehemently against this return to 'best viewed in IE', but I am also opposed to operating system developers and hardware vendors dictating what users are able to do with their own shit and insisting on putting their grubby paws on every dollar that passes through.
That is why I use Firefox, as the only remaining browser that hasn't shown a long-term pattern of curtailing user freedoms or rights when it suits them. I don't see Safari as a solution here; Apple is not pushing for an open web because it is righteous, they are pushing for a platform they control and to hurt their competitor. They are not to be trusted either. If they can, they will absolutely leverage that control against the user as they have shown time and time again that they are more than willing to do.
> Of course this is bullshit. Again. There's probably not a single site out there that is "best viewed in Safari". And there are numerous sites that are "best viewed in Chrome". Including, especially, the ones that Google themselves (#1 search, #1 mail, #1 video hosting, #1 web ad business in the world) creates.
When I say 'Apple', I mean 'Apple', not 'Safari'. Apple are the ones with a platform that will not run unblessed code. Apple are the ones that don't let developers or users choose how software is distributed. Apple are the ones that tell you which APIs you can and cannot use, and what your app can and cannot do. Apple are the ones that tell you what browser engine you can run, which is much stronger than a website saying 'yeah we tested this against IE, but go nuts', instead it is Apple saying 'if you want a browser engine, you can take Webkit or pound sand'. This is Apple's modus operandi, writ large. At least with Google's level of control you can still do what whatever you want with the website that runs in Chrome.
That is why I use Firefox, as the only remaining browser that hasn't shown a long-term pattern of curtailing user freedoms or rights when it suits them. I don't see Safari as a solution here; Apple is not pushing for an open web because it is righteous, they are pushing for a platform they control and to hurt their competitor. They are not to be trusted either. If they can, they will absolutely leverage that control against the user as they have shown time and time again that they are more than willing to do.
> Of course this is bullshit. Again. There's probably not a single site out there that is "best viewed in Safari". And there are numerous sites that are "best viewed in Chrome". Including, especially, the ones that Google themselves (#1 search, #1 mail, #1 video hosting, #1 web ad business in the world) creates.
When I say 'Apple', I mean 'Apple', not 'Safari'. Apple are the ones with a platform that will not run unblessed code. Apple are the ones that don't let developers or users choose how software is distributed. Apple are the ones that tell you which APIs you can and cannot use, and what your app can and cannot do. Apple are the ones that tell you what browser engine you can run, which is much stronger than a website saying 'yeah we tested this against IE, but go nuts', instead it is Apple saying 'if you want a browser engine, you can take Webkit or pound sand'. This is Apple's modus operandi, writ large. At least with Google's level of control you can still do what whatever you want with the website that runs in Chrome.
I mean.. not intentionally maybe.
If Apple was forced to compete on iOS for the dominant position that Safari holds, it would receive greater investment, add support for vital missing PWA features and potentially as a result grow its desktop market. I believe competition in the long run would break Blinks dominant position, and be better for both consumers and developers.
If Apple was forced to compete
It is not a fair market since the maker of one of the browsers also owns a significant portion of the websites that people use daily. Now Google has to play nice with Safari to some extend, since the don't want to miss out on the lucrative iPhone market. Once Google can offer Chrome on iOS, they will destroy Safari with the same underhanded practices as they did to Firefox (a pattern of subtly breaking Firefox with Google products).
It is not a fair market since the maker of one of the browsers also owns a significant portion of the websites that people use daily. Now Google has to play nice with Safari to some extend, since the don't want to miss out on the lucrative iPhone market. Once Google can offer Chrome on iOS, they will destroy Safari with the same underhanded practices as they did to Firefox (a pattern of subtly breaking Firefox with Google products).
> Once Google can offer Chrome on iOS, they will destroy Safari with the same underhanded practices
I don't believe that would happen, firstly Apple would fight back, and secondly the competition authorities would take action against Google.
Google is under scrutiny for its behaviour too.
You can't fight or justify anti competitive behaviour with anti competitive behaviour back.
I don't believe that would happen, firstly Apple would fight back, and secondly the competition authorities would take action against Google.
Google is under scrutiny for its behaviour too.
You can't fight or justify anti competitive behaviour with anti competitive behaviour back.
Google already does this. G-suite is a Trojan horse for their browser, which is a Trojan horse for their advertising engine. They'll disable suite features, or make it mysteriously not run in your "outdated" browser. You'll have to move to something Google approved just to be able to collaborate with your team, or your friends.
> You can't fight or justify anti competitive behaviour with anti competitive behaviour back.
The way it seems to me, for this case, is that those two "anti-"s cancel out and leave you with direct competition?
> You can't fight or justify anti competitive behaviour with anti competitive behaviour back.
The way it seems to me, for this case, is that those two "anti-"s cancel out and leave you with direct competition?
>They'll disable suite features, or make it mysteriously not run in your "outdated" browser.
Can you give an example of a G-suite (or any google product) feature that does not work in Firefox?
Can you give an example of a G-suite (or any google product) feature that does not work in Firefox?
Meet used to say WebRTC wasn’t working and boot you out of meetings if you used Firefox. Every other service worked perfectly, but they clearly were slacking on fixing it for at least a year before we stopped using Meet.
GCP periodically breaks their console logins for Firefox users.
GCP periodically breaks their console logins for Firefox users.
While being 3 years old, this video [1] is a good example of some of the behavior Google uses when they find out you're not using Chrome.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELCq63652ig
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELCq63652ig
TBH most everything works fine for me (unless I just don't know what I'm missing), but there is a very clear and frustrating gap with Meet backgrounds (blur etc.), which are artificially disabled on Firefox for dubious reasons.
You have more faith in our competition authorities fairness and approaches to these mega corps than I do, but I hope you’re right and I am wrong.
The moment iOS is forced to give browser freedom, chrome has won.
It will be a sad day for sure.
It will be a sad day for sure.
That is absolute nonsense. IE hasn't won either (despite its dominance), BECAUSE you could choose another browser.
This is why free markets work and command economies don't.
This is why free markets work and command economies don't.
The current browser approach on iPhones was created in a free market.
Using the law to force Apple to run Google software would be an example of a command economy.
Using the law to force Apple to run Google software would be an example of a command economy.
No, allowing Apple to lockout all competitors to their browsers (and letting them keep gatekeeping even skins on top of their browsers) is command economy.
It outright prevents existence of new browsers and competition and it's a flagship examples of monopolistic corporations killing innovation and competition.
You yourself admitted that free market was required for current iPhone browser to exist and Apple locked out free market.
It outright prevents existence of new browsers and competition and it's a flagship examples of monopolistic corporations killing innovation and competition.
You yourself admitted that free market was required for current iPhone browser to exist and Apple locked out free market.
> It outright prevents existence of new browsers and competition and it's a flagship examples of monopolistic corporations killing innovation and competition.
No it doesn't. Tens of new browsers appear on multiple platforms every year, in parallel with Apple's approach. All of them fail to gain significant market share, and most of them are based on Blink.
The bigger obstacle for browser innovation is the complexity of making a modern browser. That complexity is actually partly driven by developers demanding constant feature expansion in browsers. It's been great having web apps explode, but also that makes browsers fiendishly complex.
No it doesn't. Tens of new browsers appear on multiple platforms every year, in parallel with Apple's approach. All of them fail to gain significant market share, and most of them are based on Blink.
The bigger obstacle for browser innovation is the complexity of making a modern browser. That complexity is actually partly driven by developers demanding constant feature expansion in browsers. It's been great having web apps explode, but also that makes browsers fiendishly complex.
> No, allowing Apple to lockout all competitors to their browsers (and letting them keep gatekeeping even skins on top of their browsers) is command economy.
That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the term.
That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the term.
You’re just mistaken about basic economic terminology.
Already passed in the EU. Recommended in Japan, Australia and the UK.
Apple is not the company fighting for the web or browser diversity, they are the ones holding back.
Apple is not the company fighting for the web or browser diversity, they are the ones holding back.
How? Other than Gecko (Firefox), there is just Blink, which is owned and controlled by Google, and full of proprietary extensions that many here like to claim are standards. WebKit is sadly the last hope for an open web. Pushing for Chrome now is like pushing for IE/Trident in the naughties.
There is no "Gecko" on Apple platforms because you keep defending monopolistic lockout. It's utterly bizarre to defend megacorporation by scaremongering with a browser that isn't allowed to exist.
I use Firefox on macOS all day every day. It's definitely Gecko on an Apple platform. This monopoly you're talking about doesn't exist: it's two operating systems on two types of device.
I understand your frustration that you can't use the browser you want on the devices you want. That is annoying. However, *now* is the wrong time to go after Apple. Get more people using other browsers on other platforms first.
Wikipedia suggests this breakdown:
> As of November 2022, Android, an operating system using the Linux kernel, is the world's most-used operating system when judged by web use. It has 42% of the global market, followed by Windows with 30%, Apple iOS with 18%, macOS with 6%, then (desktop) Linux at 1.0% also using the Linux kernel.[1][2] These numbers do not include embedded devices or game consoles.
(from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_syste... )
Android and Windows make up 4x the number of iOS users on the web. When the % of Chrome users on those platforms goes down, and Firefox and others go up, to a level where any of them could temporarily steer the direction the HTML/W3C standards take, _that's_ the time to go after Apple. Until then, lean on the fence Apple are holding up for you (and getting Google to pay for).
I understand your frustration that you can't use the browser you want on the devices you want. That is annoying. However, *now* is the wrong time to go after Apple. Get more people using other browsers on other platforms first.
Wikipedia suggests this breakdown:
> As of November 2022, Android, an operating system using the Linux kernel, is the world's most-used operating system when judged by web use. It has 42% of the global market, followed by Windows with 30%, Apple iOS with 18%, macOS with 6%, then (desktop) Linux at 1.0% also using the Linux kernel.[1][2] These numbers do not include embedded devices or game consoles.
(from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_syste... )
Android and Windows make up 4x the number of iOS users on the web. When the % of Chrome users on those platforms goes down, and Firefox and others go up, to a level where any of them could temporarily steer the direction the HTML/W3C standards take, _that's_ the time to go after Apple. Until then, lean on the fence Apple are holding up for you (and getting Google to pay for).
Great post! The thing with people that "keep defending monopolistic lockout" as the GP put it, is they can see the bigger picture here.
The Firefox I've been running on my Mac for 15 years at this point must be a figment of my imagination.
Of course I would love to see Gecko running on iOS. I just don't like the possibility of Google's browser dominance become even stronger either. It's a hard one.
Of course I would love to see Gecko running on iOS. I just don't like the possibility of Google's browser dominance become even stronger either. It's a hard one.
If there is no "Gecko" on Apple platforms which engine does Firefox use on macOs?
Funny, the gecko base web browser on my mac must be my imagination.
Firefox had its chance to push back again the Chrome dominance. It survived against IE and became the dominant browser for a short time over IE but allowed Chrome to take over and eat its lunch.
Now Firefox is declining into irrelevance. The EU Digital Markets Act demands for Apple to open up to more browsers with just cement Chrome's dominance and make Firefox even more irrelevant.
Now Firefox is declining into irrelevance. The EU Digital Markets Act demands for Apple to open up to more browsers with just cement Chrome's dominance and make Firefox even more irrelevant.
“Allowed” is an interesting way to describe being the target of hundreds of millions of dollars in advertising and heavy promotion on several of the most popular websites in the world.
Yes. 'Allowed'. After Mozilla claiming they can live without Google's money and knowing that they could not 14 years later. [0] Then getting itself sabotaged by Google for years [1] to be overtaken as the browser with the largest market share.
With Firefox's declining usage and market share, they are essentially on life support with Google's money since they know they would be completely irrelevant without it.
It appears that [0] has not aged well at all.
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20120105090543/https://www.compu...
[1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/former-mozilla-exec-google-has...
With Firefox's declining usage and market share, they are essentially on life support with Google's money since they know they would be completely irrelevant without it.
It appears that [0] has not aged well at all.
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20120105090543/https://www.compu...
[1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/former-mozilla-exec-google-has...
>The moment iOS is forced to give browser freedom, chrome has won.
...because Chrome is a much better browser? That's what you're trying to say?
...because Chrome is a much better browser? That's what you're trying to say?
Chrome will become the better browser for Google services, because Google will intentionally degrade them on other browsers.
This is not theoretical, the playbook is obvious and has been run before, by Microsoft.
This is not theoretical, the playbook is obvious and has been run before, by Microsoft.
Sorry to sound personal, but your arguments left the realm of facts somewhere up there. I see your account has some duration and karma, which negates the usual argument of paid marketing accounts, the practice so prevalent these days (and past decade).
As for walled monopoly - what if Apple allowed Firefox with its free extension model - what argument would you come up then? One can easily use ublock origin with Firefox, a thing Apple fears quite a bit - its by far the best ad-blocking and to certain extent tracking technology out there currently. We all know here on HN that Apple is moving to marketing more and more (currently 4 billion/year for them and growing fast), so they will never allow this unless forced by law.
Which is one of those situations where users lose and corporation wins (unless you consider ads and tracking a good thing when Apple does it, but that's... illogical to be polite).
As for walled monopoly - what if Apple allowed Firefox with its free extension model - what argument would you come up then? One can easily use ublock origin with Firefox, a thing Apple fears quite a bit - its by far the best ad-blocking and to certain extent tracking technology out there currently. We all know here on HN that Apple is moving to marketing more and more (currently 4 billion/year for them and growing fast), so they will never allow this unless forced by law.
Which is one of those situations where users lose and corporation wins (unless you consider ads and tracking a good thing when Apple does it, but that's... illogical to be polite).
> what if Apple allowed Firefox with its free extension model - what argument would you come up then? One can easily use ublock origin with Firefox, a thing Apple fears quite a bit
It can’t be that afraid, because you can use the Firefox version of uBlock Origin in the WebKit-based iOS browser Orion[0] right now.
[0]: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/orion-browser-by-kagi/id148449...
It can’t be that afraid, because you can use the Firefox version of uBlock Origin in the WebKit-based iOS browser Orion[0] right now.
[0]: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/orion-browser-by-kagi/id148449...
Apple does not sell ads that load in a web browser, so I'm not sure why they would fear an ad-blocking browser extension.
Extensions, as originally implemented, are a security nightmare. That's why every browser, including Firefox, is changing the way extensions work. Firefox is keeping blocking WebRequest specifically for ad blocking, but acknowledges the security risk. Apple and Chrome are removing it, which breaks uBlock Origin.
Ironically you don't need to look any further than extensions to see the impact of giving the entire web to Chrome. Firefox said they have to implement Manifest v3 because "support for MV3, by virtue of the combined share of Chromium-based browsers, will be a de facto standard for browser extensions in the foreseeable future." Imagine what Firefox would need to do if Chrome was the only other browser, with near-total market share.
Extensions, as originally implemented, are a security nightmare. That's why every browser, including Firefox, is changing the way extensions work. Firefox is keeping blocking WebRequest specifically for ad blocking, but acknowledges the security risk. Apple and Chrome are removing it, which breaks uBlock Origin.
Ironically you don't need to look any further than extensions to see the impact of giving the entire web to Chrome. Firefox said they have to implement Manifest v3 because "support for MV3, by virtue of the combined share of Chromium-based browsers, will be a de facto standard for browser extensions in the foreseeable future." Imagine what Firefox would need to do if Chrome was the only other browser, with near-total market share.
One can quibble about whether it is on purpose, but Google has done this with their web properties and Firefox, too.
Chrome will only be the better browser if Apple refuses to improve their own. This is how free market competition works - best browser wins.
You're now demanding to be forever locked into an inferior corporate owned product because you're utterly afraid that the better product would win. It's insane.
You're now demanding to be forever locked into an inferior corporate owned product because you're utterly afraid that the better product would win. It's insane.
> You're now demanding to be forever locked into an inferior corporate owned product
Some of us are not. Some of us are saying "now is the wrong time to force Apple to open up its platform to other browsers". Safari on iOS is the one browser holding back Chrome from a monopoly for now. If you really want to see an open web, a more diverse web ecosystem, we have to expand the use of _other_ browsers such that there are again multiple, successful engines at the W3C; so that Google can't lock users out of their tools by forcing them to use Chrome. Only then will it be the right time to go after Apple's browser restrictions.
Some of us are not. Some of us are saying "now is the wrong time to force Apple to open up its platform to other browsers". Safari on iOS is the one browser holding back Chrome from a monopoly for now. If you really want to see an open web, a more diverse web ecosystem, we have to expand the use of _other_ browsers such that there are again multiple, successful engines at the W3C; so that Google can't lock users out of their tools by forcing them to use Chrome. Only then will it be the right time to go after Apple's browser restrictions.
We've waited 15 years for Apple to compete fairly. Just when will the right time arrive? When Apple has finished choking the web platform to death?
> Just when will the right time arrive?
Android and Windows make up four times the number of web users as iOS. That's almost the same ratio (Chrome:others) as browser use across the web. Get a significant proportion of those user to move onto to other browser platforms first, then go after Apple give the final 20% of users more choice.
(based on stats from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_syste... )
Android and Windows make up four times the number of web users as iOS. That's almost the same ratio (Chrome:others) as browser use across the web. Get a significant proportion of those user to move onto to other browser platforms first, then go after Apple give the final 20% of users more choice.
(based on stats from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_syste... )
> When Apple has finished choking the web platform to death?
What a bullshit statement that has no basis in reality. I wish high-visibility "thought leaders" would stop spewing this bullshit (but they won't)
Safari is definitely not choking the web platform to death. It's as lively as ever.
What you want is a bunch of Chrome-only non-standards that both Safari and Mozilla vehemently oppose to, and a smattering of other bullshit features under the PWA banner that are coming to the next versions of Safari.
What a bullshit statement that has no basis in reality. I wish high-visibility "thought leaders" would stop spewing this bullshit (but they won't)
Safari is definitely not choking the web platform to death. It's as lively as ever.
What you want is a bunch of Chrome-only non-standards that both Safari and Mozilla vehemently oppose to, and a smattering of other bullshit features under the PWA banner that are coming to the next versions of Safari.
This is just really naive. When Google controls the back-end and front-end, they can introduce custom functionality that simply will not run in an alternate browser, no matter how good it is. Microsoft did this extensively in IE.
No, shilling for a megacorp monopoly to keep back the web because you hate another browser is naive.
I honestly do not understand the mental gymnastics that allow people to not count Google as (also) a megacorp.
The situation is not “Apple good, Google bad” or vice versa. The benefit of the current situation is that places these two huge companies in direct opposition and competition in the browser space. Using the law to force Apple to lose would take that away and cede the entire Web to Google’s control, thereby actually creating a monopoly.
The situation is not “Apple good, Google bad” or vice versa. The benefit of the current situation is that places these two huge companies in direct opposition and competition in the browser space. Using the law to force Apple to lose would take that away and cede the entire Web to Google’s control, thereby actually creating a monopoly.
Because Google can leverage their position in other markets (search, video, advertising) to exert undue power in the browsing market. Their browser doesn't have to be better, they can just degrade site performance for non-Chrome browsers and claim Chrome is better--which they've done many times before.
> firstly Apple would fight back
With what?
With what?
Apple is already fighting back, with Safari.
No Apple is not fighting back, it's forcing everyone to use safari/webkit based browser on iOS.
Safari is quite competitive with Chrome - very noticeably faster at a fraction of the RAM and battery usage – and solidly dusted Chrome on the Interop 2022 competition all three vendors ran:
https://wpt.fyi/interop-2022?stable
https://wpt.fyi/interop-2022?stable
What are these websites ?
Search - I don't really see a browser specific optimization potential here.
YouTube is probably mostly app based on mobile.
Gmail and other gsuite apps are also app based on mobile.
I'd be surprised if they cared about mobile Safari support in those much or if it played a big factor.
Search - I don't really see a browser specific optimization potential here.
YouTube is probably mostly app based on mobile.
Gmail and other gsuite apps are also app based on mobile.
I'd be surprised if they cared about mobile Safari support in those much or if it played a big factor.
All 3 of those sites heavily promoted Chrome to users of other browsers, inaccurately claiming that the service would be better with it (it wasn't).
YouTube also had an interesting example of the problem: they shipped some code using Chrome's early draft of what became Web Components. Firefox and Safari implemented the standard version, but there was a LONG period where YouTube used a very slow polyfill instead of upgrading to the standard version, causing Chrome to appear to be faster because it wasn't all of that extra JavaScript. If YouTube was an independent company they would likely have fixed a poor user experience much faster.
YouTube also had an interesting example of the problem: they shipped some code using Chrome's early draft of what became Web Components. Firefox and Safari implemented the standard version, but there was a LONG period where YouTube used a very slow polyfill instead of upgrading to the standard version, causing Chrome to appear to be faster because it wasn't all of that extra JavaScript. If YouTube was an independent company they would likely have fixed a poor user experience much faster.
Here's just one example that I can remember of Google Search doing UA sniffing to serve a worse experience to Firefox: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=975444
Here's what Safari users don't get. Can you be precise about which ones are vital?
1. Install prompt (the user has to start with the "Add to Home Screen" command)
2. Link interception (i.e. browsing in the normal browser switching to the PWA rather than continuing normally)
3. Shared storage between the normal browser and the PWA
4. Ability to start fullscreen
5. SVG icons
6. Background sync
7. Push notifications
The rest of that is largely a list of things like "Web Bluetooth" which are non-standard Chrome features which Firefox also doesn't implement and often have significant privacy or security concerns.
1. Install prompt (the user has to start with the "Add to Home Screen" command)
2. Link interception (i.e. browsing in the normal browser switching to the PWA rather than continuing normally)
3. Shared storage between the normal browser and the PWA
4. Ability to start fullscreen
5. SVG icons
6. Background sync
7. Push notifications
The rest of that is largely a list of things like "Web Bluetooth" which are non-standard Chrome features which Firefox also doesn't implement and often have significant privacy or security concerns.
Push notifications alone are enough to force most apps to be native. But a lot of the other stuff missing is what keeps the experience from being quite as polished as a native app.
> the other stuff missing is what keeps the experience from being quite as polished as a native app.
Features HN developers think are missing from the web to deliver an experience "as polished as a native app": notifications, prompt banners, link interception, Chrome-only non-standards like bluetooth etc.
Features actual users think are missing from the web to deliver an experience "as polished as a native app": actual native-like experience: responsiveness, smooth animations, polished usable and accesible controls, maintaining scroll position and location in the app, fast scrolling through large lists, no loading states for the simplest actions...
I mean, people people keep bringing up Twitter's objectively bad web app as an example of one of the best PWA apps... Have these people never seen an actual native app?
Features HN developers think are missing from the web to deliver an experience "as polished as a native app": notifications, prompt banners, link interception, Chrome-only non-standards like bluetooth etc.
Features actual users think are missing from the web to deliver an experience "as polished as a native app": actual native-like experience: responsiveness, smooth animations, polished usable and accesible controls, maintaining scroll position and location in the app, fast scrolling through large lists, no loading states for the simplest actions...
I mean, people people keep bringing up Twitter's objectively bad web app as an example of one of the best PWA apps... Have these people never seen an actual native app?
It might be interesting to go through the apps you have installed and see how many don’t work as web apps. For me it’s about 10%, basically Signal and apps which use Bluetooth to configure things and which I use almost never.
I would say every one of those except the SVG icons put PWA's at a huge disadvantage, to the point of being borderline unusable.
Do you feel like the current state of PWA's in iOS presents a viable alternative to publishing an app for any real usecase?
Do you feel like the current state of PWA's in iOS presents a viable alternative to publishing an app for any real usecase?
Having played with several PWAs on Android and Windows where support is better, I’m not sure that they’d be any more popular even if Safari filled those feature holes. The average PWA experience sits somewhere between underwhelming and uncompelling, primarily because SPAs in general are anything but consistently good. For PWAs to not be bad, SPAs need to stop being bad first.
A ton of "Native Apps" are SPA's using React native, Cordova, et al. The problem is not the tech, the problem is the arbitrary feature gating (including the kinds of tricks that React Native is able to leverage when packaging an app vs running in a mobile browser).
"Vital missing PWA features" are really only vital for devs who don't want to do native mobile apps. For the rest of us, they're a yawn.
And for users who prefer keeping control. Why do you think reddit wants you to run their app and not their website on your device?
This is an interesting argument because while Google advertises the PWA concept as benefiting users, many of the features Apple and Mozilla haven’t shipped have been held back over privacy concerns. Reddit works fine in a browser, but the company wants to push you into the native app to get better ad data - they’re not going to support a PWA which gives you more control.
The biggest exception is Web Notifications and while that’s useful the desktop situation suggests there’s more than a little validity to the spam concerns. I would like that for a couple of sites but suspect I’d get really tired of selecting the “never allow” option in prompts.
The biggest exception is Web Notifications and while that’s useful the desktop situation suggests there’s more than a little validity to the spam concerns. I would like that for a couple of sites but suspect I’d get really tired of selecting the “never allow” option in prompts.
> And for users who prefer keeping control.
The moment Firefox implemented one of the many hardware APIs aggressively pushed and promoted by Google, they immediately discovered it was used for fingerprinting: https://twitter.com/denschub/status/1582730985778556931
Chrome doesn't even show a prompt in this case. So much for "control".
The moment Firefox implemented one of the many hardware APIs aggressively pushed and promoted by Google, they immediately discovered it was used for fingerprinting: https://twitter.com/denschub/status/1582730985778556931
Chrome doesn't even show a prompt in this case. So much for "control".
Checked my settings and chrome defaults to prompt. Where did you read that chrome doesn't prompt?
Could be they fixed it after this. Info on no prompt from the same person: https://twitter.com/denschub/status/1582730988118867968
--- start quote ---
Chrome still allows web developers to enumerate attached MIDI devices without user consent or even a notification, btw.
--- end quote ---
--- start quote ---
Chrome still allows web developers to enumerate attached MIDI devices without user consent or even a notification, btw.
--- end quote ---
So they can run ads where I can't easily block them, presumably.
I have never once intentionally or willingly used a PWA when an app was available.
[deleted]
Vital missing PWA features are indeed vital for Apple to stymie PWAs and force all iOS software through App Store which they fully control. PWAs is a territory where the Apple tax (30%) cannot be enforced.
Sounds like opinion of those who haven't used the many rich home screen web apps available, indistinguishable from an app store app for most users.
Complaining about this is memetic rather than fact based.
Complaining about this is memetic rather than fact based.
How Google hasn't even got a slap on its wrist yet for how they have massively abused their market position to push Chrome is beyond me.
Which reminds me it is about time to send one of my approximately twice-a-year reminders to competition authorities around here and remind them about it.
If anyone else feels the same, please do, maybe if letters start arriving from other persons than old grumpy reitan they will actually care?
Which reminds me it is about time to send one of my approximately twice-a-year reminders to competition authorities around here and remind them about it.
If anyone else feels the same, please do, maybe if letters start arriving from other persons than old grumpy reitan they will actually care?
That would be something I would do. Do you have a template you send?
Sadly no.
But something along the lines of:
--------
header, greetings etc
I'm writing you in the hope that you would have time to look into the abuse of market power by Google that has destroyed a well functioning market for web browsers.
Background:
Back before 2008 IE was both stale and very dominant and [...]
The reason for this was both that Internet Explorer (IE from now) started out as a very good browser for it time, but more importantly that Microsoft (MS) abused its market position to push it everywhere and to intentionally degrade experiences for other browsers as proven by Opera Software when they showed that MS technical support web pages magically started working if one let their browser identify itself as IW.
Microsoft was fined severly for this and was also forced to create a browser ballot on machines sold in the EU at least where they had to present IE togheter with competing browsers. Around this time MS also to some degree started changing their ways
This was followed by the rise of OS independent browsers, especially Firefox in the beginning but also Chrome later.
Since around 2010 the growth of Chrome has been happening by eating every other browsers share and there is a lot to indicate that technical superiority is far from the only reason why this has happened:
- remeber to mention bundling (w/Adobe and probably others)
- ads on the front page of Google, something that no others have been allowed to
- misleading ads (showing download a better browser also to firefox users and opera users)
- and last but not least: Google has also been caught red handed in degrading experiences for other browsers, not based on technical capabilities but how they identify themselves
--------
This should serve as a starting point. I need to get back to work and English is not my first language so make your own : )
But something along the lines of:
--------
header, greetings etc
I'm writing you in the hope that you would have time to look into the abuse of market power by Google that has destroyed a well functioning market for web browsers.
Background:
Back before 2008 IE was both stale and very dominant and [...]
The reason for this was both that Internet Explorer (IE from now) started out as a very good browser for it time, but more importantly that Microsoft (MS) abused its market position to push it everywhere and to intentionally degrade experiences for other browsers as proven by Opera Software when they showed that MS technical support web pages magically started working if one let their browser identify itself as IW.
Microsoft was fined severly for this and was also forced to create a browser ballot on machines sold in the EU at least where they had to present IE togheter with competing browsers. Around this time MS also to some degree started changing their ways
This was followed by the rise of OS independent browsers, especially Firefox in the beginning but also Chrome later.
Since around 2010 the growth of Chrome has been happening by eating every other browsers share and there is a lot to indicate that technical superiority is far from the only reason why this has happened:
- remeber to mention bundling (w/Adobe and probably others)
- ads on the front page of Google, something that no others have been allowed to
- misleading ads (showing download a better browser also to firefox users and opera users)
- and last but not least: Google has also been caught red handed in degrading experiences for other browsers, not based on technical capabilities but how they identify themselves
--------
This should serve as a starting point. I need to get back to work and English is not my first language so make your own : )
GPT prompt:
Write a letter to a politician that urges them to investigate and enforce laws around the anti-competitive behavior that Google is exhibiting when they abuse their market position to push their Chrome browser. Include a comparison to Microsoft's anti-trust lawsuits around Internet Explorer. Also include specific information around the actions Google is taking that is anti-competitive.
AI:
Dear [Politician],
I am writing to urge you to look into and enforce laws related to the anti-competitive behavior of Google, which is abusing its market position by pushing its Chrome browser. This situation has alarming similarities to the Microsoft antitrust lawsuits surrounding Internet Explorer.
Google is using tactics such as preinstalling Chrome on Android devices, and making it difficult for users to switch to a different browser. It uses its dominance in the search engine market to promote Chrome over alternatives. Google also restricts Android device makers from using modified versions of Android that would allow them to use a different browser. Google has gone even further to promote Chrome by incentivizing device makers to preinstall Chrome and Chrome-related apps through its Android Mobile Services agreements.
This is unacceptable and we need strong action to prevent large corporations like Google from abusing their power in the tech sector. Therefore, I strongly urge you to investigate and enforce laws around this anti-competitive behavior.
Sincerely, [Name]
Write a letter to a politician that urges them to investigate and enforce laws around the anti-competitive behavior that Google is exhibiting when they abuse their market position to push their Chrome browser. Include a comparison to Microsoft's anti-trust lawsuits around Internet Explorer. Also include specific information around the actions Google is taking that is anti-competitive.
AI:
Dear [Politician],
I am writing to urge you to look into and enforce laws related to the anti-competitive behavior of Google, which is abusing its market position by pushing its Chrome browser. This situation has alarming similarities to the Microsoft antitrust lawsuits surrounding Internet Explorer.
Google is using tactics such as preinstalling Chrome on Android devices, and making it difficult for users to switch to a different browser. It uses its dominance in the search engine market to promote Chrome over alternatives. Google also restricts Android device makers from using modified versions of Android that would allow them to use a different browser. Google has gone even further to promote Chrome by incentivizing device makers to preinstall Chrome and Chrome-related apps through its Android Mobile Services agreements.
This is unacceptable and we need strong action to prevent large corporations like Google from abusing their power in the tech sector. Therefore, I strongly urge you to investigate and enforce laws around this anti-competitive behavior.
Sincerely, [Name]
I'm using Firefox on my Windows, Mac and Android, and I don't remember when was the last time that I had to open Chrome.
I've used Firefox for twenty years.
It's not everyday but I have to open Chrome, or recently Brave, atleast once a month to deal with shitty frontend developers that only test their latest code in chrome, awful security captchas that only work in Chrome, and just total shit show foreign/non American sites that went from worst practices in IE to worst practices in Chrome because some old man/men in their government/company decided it needs to be done in a certain way because it works best on their ten year old laptop.
I just open tickets, complain, limit interaction with offending sites, because as someone who lived through AOL and internet explorer I know how awful it will be if a mega tech company is allowed to dictate web standards because they don't have to interoperate. Most sites can just be cordoned off until they fix the issue or be forgotten about but banking sites often intersect total shit programmers and by the book regulations that are poorly written sadly.
Also Firefox is the only cross platform browser that lets me control what I see and doesn't force me to waste time in my life by seeing ads without jumping through hoops.
It's not everyday but I have to open Chrome, or recently Brave, atleast once a month to deal with shitty frontend developers that only test their latest code in chrome, awful security captchas that only work in Chrome, and just total shit show foreign/non American sites that went from worst practices in IE to worst practices in Chrome because some old man/men in their government/company decided it needs to be done in a certain way because it works best on their ten year old laptop.
I just open tickets, complain, limit interaction with offending sites, because as someone who lived through AOL and internet explorer I know how awful it will be if a mega tech company is allowed to dictate web standards because they don't have to interoperate. Most sites can just be cordoned off until they fix the issue or be forgotten about but banking sites often intersect total shit programmers and by the book regulations that are poorly written sadly.
Also Firefox is the only cross platform browser that lets me control what I see and doesn't force me to waste time in my life by seeing ads without jumping through hoops.
I had a similar experience.
Though for me it turns out the reason Firefox wasn’t working for me for some sites was that some sites didn’t work with ublock origin which wasn’t installed on my chromium. Turning it off for non working sites in Firefox fixed the issues for me.
Though for me it turns out the reason Firefox wasn’t working for me for some sites was that some sites didn’t work with ublock origin which wasn’t installed on my chromium. Turning it off for non working sites in Firefox fixed the issues for me.
The Google Could Console run only on Chrome last time I checked one year ago. It used to run on Firefox and Vivaldi, then it failed to load on Vivaldi and loaded to a blank page plus a menu on Firefox.
Google docs never works for me in Firefox so I mostly stopped using google docs
>"Also Firefox is the only cross platform browser that lets me control what I see and doesn't force me to waste time in my life by seeing ads without jumping through hoops."
Brave blocks ads by default
Brave blocks ads by default
I'm of the opinion that using a skinned Chromium browser is the same as actively supporting Chrome. Its better than Chrome but still adds to Chromes dominance. Google still gets to decide standards in the browser and none of the Chromium browsers seem to work on actual underlying browser implementation, just a different look with built in browser extensions.
>"I'm of the opinion that using a skinned Chromium browser is the same as actively supporting Chrome."
Well I respect your opinion. However I have no time / desire to get political about this particular issue. Brave works for me.
Well I respect your opinion. However I have no time / desire to get political about this particular issue. Brave works for me.
Chrome and Safari have nothing like Firefox containers. I can't imagine switching to Chrome or Safari.
The first thing we need to do is to limit the scope of the web. Make the web tech finite. Stop evolving it. Throw away all the wannabe-app-platform crap and anti-user features like service workers, PWAs, DRM, WebUSB, WebBluetooth, WebSerial, WebMIDI, then declare HTML, CSS, and JS immutable. Third party cookies also need to be abolished, yesterday, with no replacement.
Then we could possibly have new, from-scratch, independent browser engines that could compete with the status quo.
Then we could possibly have new, from-scratch, independent browser engines that could compete with the status quo.
The web is the only credibly neutral platform humanity has. If you get rid of the web then all software that humans interact with will be controlled by one of a small handful of giant corporations which I think I can speak for nearly everyone here would be a Very Bad Thing.
No more porn. No more innovative experiments. No more kids making dumb little things to learn programming. No more freedom to set your own app policies.
The web is the only platform keeping user and dev freedom alive and it's imperative that hackers like us fight for it.
No more porn. No more innovative experiments. No more kids making dumb little things to learn programming. No more freedom to set your own app policies.
The web is the only platform keeping user and dev freedom alive and it's imperative that hackers like us fight for it.
There needs to be a government regulation that forbids platform gatekeeping. If you sell a general-purpose device or make an OS for such devices, you can't insert yourself between third-party app developers and their users, simple as that. This would solve the problem you're describing.
When that gets implemented then we can reevaluate the complexity of the web.
> The web is the only credibly neutral platform humanity has. If you get rid of the web then all software that humans interact with will be controlled by one of a small handful of giant corporations
The following things have been pushed and enabled by a single web ad agency with complete disregard to concerns and objections: WebUSB, WebBluetooth, WebSerial, WebMIDI. There are countless others.
The web hasn't been neutral for a very long time. Google believes the web is it's own playground now.
The following things have been pushed and enabled by a single web ad agency with complete disregard to concerns and objections: WebUSB, WebBluetooth, WebSerial, WebMIDI. There are countless others.
The web hasn't been neutral for a very long time. Google believes the web is it's own playground now.
That would mean the web is dead. The things you mention would result in more app only experiences.
Yes. That's the point. The web is for documents. Please stop trying to build actual apps with hypertext macros.
We did have a technology for adding interactive app-like content to hypertext documents, it was called Flash. I do hope that it gets eventually resurrected but as an open standard. There is an open-source Flash player being actively developed right now, Ruffle. There isn't an open-source authoring program yet, but this feels like a much lesser issue. IMO it's important for there to be that boundary between the "document" and the "app". The only real shortcoming of the original Flash was that it relied on a proprietary plugin.
Of course, Apple also needs to be forced to allow app sideloading, that's regardless of what they do or do not implement in Safari.
We did have a technology for adding interactive app-like content to hypertext documents, it was called Flash. I do hope that it gets eventually resurrected but as an open standard. There is an open-source Flash player being actively developed right now, Ruffle. There isn't an open-source authoring program yet, but this feels like a much lesser issue. IMO it's important for there to be that boundary between the "document" and the "app". The only real shortcoming of the original Flash was that it relied on a proprietary plugin.
Of course, Apple also needs to be forced to allow app sideloading, that's regardless of what they do or do not implement in Safari.
That would just result in Web 2.0 being created and everyone moving to that.
Thankfully I've noticed an uptick in younger Firefox users due to memes on Reddit about how using Firefox is cool.
My son uses Opera! He keeps telling me (an engineer) I should use it. I'm like, "do not cite the deep magic to me kid, I was there when it was written.
It does give me hope that not all folks are lemmings. Just like during the IE6 days, there was a nice ground-swell of Firefox (or "Fox-fire" as some of the older folks called it) users.
It does give me hope that not all folks are lemmings. Just like during the IE6 days, there was a nice ground-swell of Firefox (or "Fox-fire" as some of the older folks called it) users.
Opera GX has been sponsoring youtubers, might have seen it from there.
It does actually have some interesting features nowadays. The background resource limiter would have been nice when back when I played WoW, since the usual database site had some serious memory leaks.
It does actually have some interesting features nowadays. The background resource limiter would have been nice when back when I played WoW, since the usual database site had some serious memory leaks.
I'm certain that's it.
Since 2013 Opera has been a Chromium wrapper, like Edge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_(web_browser)
Oh yeah, that one's a bit trickier to explain. It's a bit like telling people, "no, You CAN NOT currently run real Chrome on your iPhone... yes I know you see an icon that says 'Chrome' on it..."
I'm not sure he gets the concept of "browser engines".
I'm not sure he gets the concept of "browser engines".
You don't need to worry about Apple. You don't need to underestimate Apple's engineering team. It has the most well-funded and competitive engineering team on the planet and they can afford fighting for browser market share against Chrome. Safari was falling behind the competition for a while not because Chrome is a unbeatable monstrosity but Apple doesn't have to compete against it.
Whatever they'll do, company policies will only let Safari run on Apple hardware where they want developers create apps to make Apple profit from. Any improvement to Safari is less profit for the Store. However maybe the EU will really force Apple to let other browser engines run on their devices and they'll have to let go a part of the Store. We will see.
On the other side, Chrome runs on any hardware and people using Safari on their iPhone are likely to use Chrome at work or on their PCs. The competition is almost one sided and can't be won by staying inside the closed world of Macs and ìPhones, especially ìPhones because of the internal competition from native apps.
On the other side, Chrome runs on any hardware and people using Safari on their iPhone are likely to use Chrome at work or on their PCs. The competition is almost one sided and can't be won by staying inside the closed world of Macs and ìPhones, especially ìPhones because of the internal competition from native apps.
Perhaps we should prepare for this by building nice, user-friendly sandboxes that run Chrome inside it.
Well it is still open source and in that case you would be able to access the site with the same browser features just using Chromium instead
> once it gets enough ground.
I think that Chrome is way past that, being at ~70% browser market share.
I think that Chrome is way past that, being at ~70% browser market share.
>Is there any other anti-Chrome bastion than iOS’ Safari?
What an insane take, I don't believe you are serious, there's no way you're not a troll.
Safari is not an anti-Chrome bastion, Apple does not care and does not want Safari to be a better browser than Chrome. They just care about controling from where you install the apps on your phone.
What an insane take, I don't believe you are serious, there's no way you're not a troll.
Safari is not an anti-Chrome bastion, Apple does not care and does not want Safari to be a better browser than Chrome. They just care about controling from where you install the apps on your phone.
You should probably just not use the Internet any more.
,,In addition, Apple has been underfunding Safari for the past decade leading to missing critical functionality and a buggy experience for Web App developers thus ensuring that Native Apps, another Apple revenue source, are the only viable solution.''
It's not just funding. Apple changed webapps to delete indexedDB periodically even if they are inatalled on the home screen.
There's no way to have a great experience if you can't store data permanently.
It's not just funding. Apple changed webapps to delete indexedDB periodically even if they are inatalled on the home screen.
There's no way to have a great experience if you can't store data permanently.
Safari deletes all of a site's local data after a week of inactivity, including cookies.
This makes users feel like they're never logged into a website when they need it, unless they're using it almost daily.
That high-friction experience pushes users towards apps, which of course are always ready to go.
EDIT: source: https://webkit.org/blog/10218/full-third-party-cookie-blocki...
> Back in February 2019, we announced that ITP would cap the expiry of client-side cookies to seven days
> ...
> Now ITP has aligned the remaining script-writable storage forms with the existing client-side cookie restriction, deleting all of a website’s script-writable storage after seven days of Safari use without user interaction on the site. These are the script-writable storage forms affected (excluding some legacy website data types):
> Indexed DB
> LocalStorage
> Media keys
> SessionStorage
> Service Worker registrations and cache
EDIT 2: That page indicates web apps on the home screen get some variation for this behavior, but the difference isn't clear to me.
This makes users feel like they're never logged into a website when they need it, unless they're using it almost daily.
That high-friction experience pushes users towards apps, which of course are always ready to go.
EDIT: source: https://webkit.org/blog/10218/full-third-party-cookie-blocki...
> Back in February 2019, we announced that ITP would cap the expiry of client-side cookies to seven days
> ...
> Now ITP has aligned the remaining script-writable storage forms with the existing client-side cookie restriction, deleting all of a website’s script-writable storage after seven days of Safari use without user interaction on the site. These are the script-writable storage forms affected (excluding some legacy website data types):
> Indexed DB
> LocalStorage
> Media keys
> SessionStorage
> Service Worker registrations and cache
EDIT 2: That page indicates web apps on the home screen get some variation for this behavior, but the difference isn't clear to me.
> apps, which of course are always ready to go.
I wish that were true. But since many apps these days are just slapdash shims over web portals, they time out login sessions and forget things anyway.
I wish that were true. But since many apps these days are just slapdash shims over web portals, they time out login sessions and forget things anyway.
> Safari deletes all of a site's local data after a week of inactivity, including cookies.
That’s a gross misrepresentation of how Safari ITP works.
That’s a gross misrepresentation of how Safari ITP works.
What's the correct version?
The parent has since updated their post with updated details that I wasn't previously aware-of - I thought they were referring to a news story from 2012 when Apple first introduced clearing of client-side-cookies (i.e. cookies set by JavaScript, not cookies in general) after inactivity but was commonly misinterpreted as Apple saying they'd just delete all cookies after a week willy-nilly.
However I note that contrary the parent-poster's implication that Apple is using tricks like these to steer users towards native apps, the same linked article talks about how pinned web-apps (i.e. PWAs) _don't_ have their local content deleted after inactivity, which contradicts the claim that Apple is using this in particular to sabotage PWAs:
> That is the case in Safari. Web applications added to the home screen are not part of Safari and thus have their own counter of days of use. Their days of use will match actual use of the web application which resets the timer. We do not expect the first-party in such a web application to have its website data deleted. > > If your web application does experience website data deletion, please let us know since we would consider it a serious bug. It is not the intention of Intelligent Tracking Prevention to delete website data for first parties in web applications.
But I do agree that Apple very likely has internal orders from the top-down to de-prioritise PWAs because Apple definitely wants to see users (and devs) go native (or least via the App Store) instead of being PWAs - but I don't believe it goes as far as _actively_ sabotaging PWAs (i.e. just merely "passively-sabotaging", I guess?).
However I note that contrary the parent-poster's implication that Apple is using tricks like these to steer users towards native apps, the same linked article talks about how pinned web-apps (i.e. PWAs) _don't_ have their local content deleted after inactivity, which contradicts the claim that Apple is using this in particular to sabotage PWAs:
> That is the case in Safari. Web applications added to the home screen are not part of Safari and thus have their own counter of days of use. Their days of use will match actual use of the web application which resets the timer. We do not expect the first-party in such a web application to have its website data deleted. > > If your web application does experience website data deletion, please let us know since we would consider it a serious bug. It is not the intention of Intelligent Tracking Prevention to delete website data for first parties in web applications.
But I do agree that Apple very likely has internal orders from the top-down to de-prioritise PWAs because Apple definitely wants to see users (and devs) go native (or least via the App Store) instead of being PWAs - but I don't believe it goes as far as _actively_ sabotaging PWAs (i.e. just merely "passively-sabotaging", I guess?).
Why should a browser app be allowed to store data permanently? I think that breaks
normal ideas about how browser apps work, except for cookies everything is stored server side.
We're talking about for installed Web Apps here.
Ask yourself the same question about Native Apps. Why should any Native App be allowed to store data permanently. The answer to that question is the same for Web Apps.
Ask yourself the same question about Native Apps. Why should any Native App be allowed to store data permanently. The answer to that question is the same for Web Apps.
Exactly.
So much of the software industry has been consolidated into the hands of a few monopolies. Web, with all of its horrible problems, is pretty much the only democratic platform we have left, and even it is constantly being eaten away by these monopolies.
It's your device. If you want a website to be able to store data permanently on it, it is your choice. Not apple's. Not google's. Fucking yours.
So much of the software industry has been consolidated into the hands of a few monopolies. Web, with all of its horrible problems, is pretty much the only democratic platform we have left, and even it is constantly being eaten away by these monopolies.
It's your device. If you want a website to be able to store data permanently on it, it is your choice. Not apple's. Not google's. Fucking yours.
Yes, the answer is the same. I also don't want apps to use my local storage.
I (and many others I suspect) like web apps exactly because they cannot do what native apps can. If a web app was allowed to do what a native app why would I use a web app? It would just bring the bad sides of native apps to web apps.
1. Interoperable between all operating systems (mobile and desktop)
2. Does not lock you into proprietary ecosystems
3. Is built on free and open technology, and investing in that technology helps make it available to others
4. Is not subject to the whims, taxes and control of the gatekeepers
Web Apps can be every bit as capable as Native Apps except with security and privacy built in. For consumers, businesses and competition, Native Apps need to be relegated to to apps that require cutting edge use cases
Web Apps can be every bit as capable as Native Apps except with security and privacy built in. For consumers, businesses and competition, Native Apps need to be relegated to to apps that require cutting edge use cases
I would say that a web app is worse than a stand alone native app from a open perspective.
Unless the app is open source why would it matter to me if it is build on free and open technology?
I would say per definition a webapp is less free than a native app as its under the control of the server operator and not running locally. I know iOS have somewhat webified apps to let them control if people can run them but the old idea of the native app would be entirely under the control of the user, even if its closed source.
I also dont think a web app can do privacy as well as a native app. A native app you can firewalled off from network access while with a web app you are at the mercy of the developer and server operator.
Unless the app is open source why would it matter to me if it is build on free and open technology?
I would say per definition a webapp is less free than a native app as its under the control of the server operator and not running locally. I know iOS have somewhat webified apps to let them control if people can run them but the old idea of the native app would be entirely under the control of the user, even if its closed source.
I also dont think a web app can do privacy as well as a native app. A native app you can firewalled off from network access while with a web app you are at the mercy of the developer and server operator.
With a web app there is a direct relationship between the site owner (let's say HN) and me. There is no Apple middleman in between, making rules about what the service can do or can't do, taking a cut of the profits, shutting down the service at their whim, deciding which updates are good and which are not. Same for Google on Android.
I think it's bold of you to assume that in a world where Apple decides to have 1st class support PWA's that it won't also come with the same restrictions as native apps.
They'll make you submit your PWA for app store review, sign your asset and JS bundles so all other's won't load, make you support "Web IAP", and go through review again every time you want to update your bundle.
Hitching your "I want to be be free of Apple's platform control" to "I want PWA's" is a recipe for disappointment.
They'll make you submit your PWA for app store review, sign your asset and JS bundles so all other's won't load, make you support "Web IAP", and go through review again every time you want to update your bundle.
Hitching your "I want to be be free of Apple's platform control" to "I want PWA's" is a recipe for disappointment.
1. Web Apps are not interoperable across browsers. It's largely a Chrome world.
2. You (as a user) lack autonomy or control over them.
3. While built on "free and open technology", they are not by design.
4. Is totally subject to the whems, taxes, and control of the gatekeeper (the app developer)
Web applications have demonstratively made the experience worse for users without them knowing it. And web app developers know this intrinsically and refuse to acknowledge it.
2. You (as a user) lack autonomy or control over them.
3. While built on "free and open technology", they are not by design.
4. Is totally subject to the whems, taxes, and control of the gatekeeper (the app developer)
Web applications have demonstratively made the experience worse for users without them knowing it. And web app developers know this intrinsically and refuse to acknowledge it.
1. They largely are, the effort to build so they run in Firefox is small and if Safari is forced to compete and then fixes the bugs + adds critical functionality then they will be interoperable on iOS as well
2. You have far more control over Web Apps than Native Apps. The permissions are more granular + via your user agent (browser) you can change privacy and security settings and install extensions to change the behaviour further.
This is not available on native.
3. We're not advocating for "free" apps (App Developers need to make a living too), We're advocating for free and open web tech.
4. Having hundreds of thousands of competing App Developers is not an issue, having 2/3 gatekeepers controlling and extracting rents is.
5. Web Applications only have to be written once, which will result in BETTER products. There's a reason Adobe, Microsoft and many other companies are all investing in Web Apps.
2. You have far more control over Web Apps than Native Apps. The permissions are more granular + via your user agent (browser) you can change privacy and security settings and install extensions to change the behaviour further.
This is not available on native.
3. We're not advocating for "free" apps (App Developers need to make a living too), We're advocating for free and open web tech.
4. Having hundreds of thousands of competing App Developers is not an issue, having 2/3 gatekeepers controlling and extracting rents is.
5. Web Applications only have to be written once, which will result in BETTER products. There's a reason Adobe, Microsoft and many other companies are all investing in Web Apps.
> Web Applications only have to be written once, which will result in BETTER products. There's a reason Adobe, Microsoft and many other companies are all investing in Web Apps.
No, its so they can better get money out of the end users. A user cant keep using their 5 year old copy of XYZ, they have to pay every month or they will be cut off from the application.
No, its so they can better get money out of the end users. A user cant keep using their 5 year old copy of XYZ, they have to pay every month or they will be cut off from the application.
1. Not in my experience. I use Firefox and with very few execptions, everything works the way I expect it to.
2. Not any more than native apps.
3. I guess.. Not sure that matters though..
4. Not any more than native apps. But what mtomweb refers to is obviously the app stores which act as gate keepers, which web apps are not subject to.
>Web applications have demonstratively made the experience worse for users without them knowing it. And web app developers know this intrinsically and refuse to acknowledge it.
What? Not in my opinion, they haven't.
2. Not any more than native apps.
3. I guess.. Not sure that matters though..
4. Not any more than native apps. But what mtomweb refers to is obviously the app stores which act as gate keepers, which web apps are not subject to.
>Web applications have demonstratively made the experience worse for users without them knowing it. And web app developers know this intrinsically and refuse to acknowledge it.
What? Not in my opinion, they haven't.
Browser apps (particularly the concept of PWAs) are the only alternative to the App Store on iOS. Having a way to store data indefinitely is essential, even if that is behind a "install as app" banner.
Some users would like to, for example, dismiss the beg banner on Wikipedia and have it stay gone.
How to balance that desire with advertisers' desire to track users is of course a difficult question.
How to balance that desire with advertisers' desire to track users is of course a difficult question.
I largely agree. I'd also say Why should a native app be allowed to store data permanently?
But it would be nice if the user could make this setting on a per-webapp basis.
But it would be nice if the user could make this setting on a per-webapp basis.
They're intentionally making Safari a bad experience so that you have to use apps for everything. Apps where they can rake 30% on your purchases, of course.
xiphias2: Are you sure about it deleting IDB data even if they are installed on the homescreen? We've not come across that before.
If so this is something we really need to follow up.
If so this is something we really need to follow up.
https://webkit.org/blog/10218/full-third-party-cookie-blocki...
> As mentioned, the seven-day cap on script-writable storage is gated on “after seven days of Safari use without user interaction on the site.” That is the case in Safari. Web applications added to the home screen are not part of Safari and thus have their own counter of days of use. Their days of use will match actual use of the web application which resets the timer. We do not expect the first-party in such a web application to have its website data deleted.
> If your web application does experience website data deletion, please let us know since we would consider it a serious bug. It is not the intention of Intelligent Tracking Prevention to delete website data for first parties in web applications.
So, while adding it to the home screen still involves this mechanism, the "first-party"--which I understand to be the website which was actually added to the home screen, differentiating it from all of the third-party websites that it might link you to--is presumably going to be used every time you use that icon on the home screen and since that icon also has its own usage counter it won't ever be counting up when you aren't using it, so you are "good" (unless the user manages to use your home screen added app for seven days without ever ending up back at the "first-party" site somehow, which seems like an oddity and maybe one they mitigated directly).
> As mentioned, the seven-day cap on script-writable storage is gated on “after seven days of Safari use without user interaction on the site.” That is the case in Safari. Web applications added to the home screen are not part of Safari and thus have their own counter of days of use. Their days of use will match actual use of the web application which resets the timer. We do not expect the first-party in such a web application to have its website data deleted.
> If your web application does experience website data deletion, please let us know since we would consider it a serious bug. It is not the intention of Intelligent Tracking Prevention to delete website data for first parties in web applications.
So, while adding it to the home screen still involves this mechanism, the "first-party"--which I understand to be the website which was actually added to the home screen, differentiating it from all of the third-party websites that it might link you to--is presumably going to be used every time you use that icon on the home screen and since that icon also has its own usage counter it won't ever be counting up when you aren't using it, so you are "good" (unless the user manages to use your home screen added app for seven days without ever ending up back at the "first-party" site somehow, which seems like an oddity and maybe one they mitigated directly).
Couldn't you get around this by e.g. having a JWT auth token be a part of the webapps insalled url? And then if local data is missing, use the token to fetch it from a backend store? That's how I would solve it at least.
1) The people who are really caring about this are trying to avoid having the data be stored on some server also, and 2) so are you claiming Apple got this wrong?... Like, their mechanism here sounded pretty sufficient to me.
This doesn't feel like it's a great idea but considering the implication of your webapp forgetting stuff, I'm not sure of a better option.
I'm not sure, I just read it somewhere some time ago, somewhere I read that iOS deletes it weekly or something like that. But I'm happy that I was wrong about it.
Oh right, yeah, I think there's an exception for home screen apps. Now it's worse for Web Apps to have the data deleted, but I do understand the privacy reasons why Apple is deleting the IDB data.
> Apple changed webapps to delete indexedDB periodically even if they are inatalled on the home screen.
Source? I had thought the usage counter ignored days when you didn't open the webapp.
Source? I had thought the usage counter ignored days when you didn't open the webapp.
What if you store the data in a back-end, just like native mobile apps?
Many (most?) native apps also have a local store which is essential to how they function. Having to rely on stable internet for your app to work is annoying for lots of types of apps.
Do you really believe most apps rely on local storage? What if I remove the app from my phone and reinstall it later? All my data is gone?
I am pretty sure most apps use AT LEAST iCloud to store data
I am pretty sure most apps use AT LEAST iCloud to store data
Oh come on, relying on local storage is not the same as not having a backup.
Modern web apps can cache all the files they need to function. They can work offline. So when iOS deletes a web app's data, it doesn't just delete some content and maybe a few settings. It's basically like it deletes the entire app and you have to reinstall it (by opening the web app and re-download all assets that make it work). Sure, the icon is still on your home screen, but the entire app behind it is gone.
It'll also delete things like your login status/tokens/etc, so you have to log in again, maybe the web app has settings that it doesn't want to sync across devices, etc.
I assume that when Web Push hits iOS, notifications will only work as long as you open the web app often enough.
Modern web apps can cache all the files they need to function. They can work offline. So when iOS deletes a web app's data, it doesn't just delete some content and maybe a few settings. It's basically like it deletes the entire app and you have to reinstall it (by opening the web app and re-download all assets that make it work). Sure, the icon is still on your home screen, but the entire app behind it is gone.
It'll also delete things like your login status/tokens/etc, so you have to log in again, maybe the web app has settings that it doesn't want to sync across devices, etc.
I assume that when Web Push hits iOS, notifications will only work as long as you open the web app often enough.
Oh okay I didn’t realize we were talking about the actual application code being stored in local data. I thought they meant stuff like user data or application state, which is often handled by the back-end instead of client-side. Makes sense now, and I can see how removing that ability from webapps makes offline functionality impossible.
Example?
Any app you install downloads megabytes worth of code, assets, etc. That's all local storage.
And your browser will cache those assets. I, for one, prefer that approach. And I can clear my cache when I want.
Somebody has to pay for that backend, making it hard to build free apps.
It also impacts the UX of the app with more complex caching or having to load things over the network as you use it.
It also impacts the UX of the app with more complex caching or having to load things over the network as you use it.
I'm excited because if Nostr for this reason: it can be used as a general storage for small data.
It's not good for storing media, but for other things it can be used as a backup and communication tool for web apps.
It's not good for storing media, but for other things it can be used as a backup and communication tool for web apps.
One of the things the UK Competition Commission is also looking into as part of this investigation is "In App Browsers" (IABs). They need to die in a fire.
In app browsers are designed to lock the user into the app they are currently using, allowing it to track the user after they have followed a link, and coerce them to come back. For the websites being visited (on iOS) this is a separate session, no shared cookies with the main browser. This fundamentally breaks shopping carts on online stores, and I have seen it result in a 50% drop out rate at checkout (users often don't have access to their stored card details).
I frankly can't understand why there has not been more push back from advertisers using platforms such as Facebook, they are only a net negative for them.
In app browsers are designed to lock the user into the app they are currently using, allowing it to track the user after they have followed a link, and coerce them to come back. For the websites being visited (on iOS) this is a separate session, no shared cookies with the main browser. This fundamentally breaks shopping carts on online stores, and I have seen it result in a 50% drop out rate at checkout (users often don't have access to their stored card details).
I frankly can't understand why there has not been more push back from advertisers using platforms such as Facebook, they are only a net negative for them.
Yeah, it would be nice if we could at least have a system preference that forced the iab api to open the url as a regular browser tab.
For anyone making the "Apple is the last bastion against Chrome dominance"-argument: Apple is not in it for the web. Quite the opposite, more likely. They are all about control, not letting you choose a browser.
Also, I don't see how fighting a potential monoculture with an actual monoculture is a solution.
For further reading: https://infrequently.org/2022/06/apple-is-not-defending-brow...
Also, I don't see how fighting a potential monoculture with an actual monoculture is a solution.
For further reading: https://infrequently.org/2022/06/apple-is-not-defending-brow...
I don't care what their reasoning is, I know it's not out of the goodness of their hearts. I just like that web developers have to be mindful about making sure their stuff works on a browser that isn't Chromium. Myself and Apple happen to want the same thing but for different reasons. As of now, the effect is still net good for the open web.
I assume they'll be forced to allow other browser engines on iOS at some point in the next few years, at which point the floodgates will be opened for Google to have free rein on web standards and further cement themselves as owners of the internet.
I assume they'll be forced to allow other browser engines on iOS at some point in the next few years, at which point the floodgates will be opened for Google to have free rein on web standards and further cement themselves as owners of the internet.
Because it's not about what you can run in the iPhone that you may not even buy. By keeping Safari alive this way, web developers, including those at Google, are forced to code against "web browsers" instead of just Chrome.
The mass of iOS users "forced" to use the browser that comes with the device they buy gives you more chances that a given website will work on Firefox on your personal computer.
That link is a blog from a Chrome engineer and shows a chart of Chrome cornerning the browser market with the caption of "Destkop OSes have long created a vibrant market for browser choice, enabling competitors not tied to OS defaults to flourish over the years.", it's ridiculous.
The mass of iOS users "forced" to use the browser that comes with the device they buy gives you more chances that a given website will work on Firefox on your personal computer.
That link is a blog from a Chrome engineer and shows a chart of Chrome cornerning the browser market with the caption of "Destkop OSes have long created a vibrant market for browser choice, enabling competitors not tied to OS defaults to flourish over the years.", it's ridiculous.
I think most people making that argument know this. It's just a case of politics makes for strange bedfellows. What apple is doing here is wrong and obviously if google did the same thing on android, it would make the bad chrome situation even worse. But despite that not being what apple is trying to do, it's also acting as a buffer of chrome getting closer still to just having near-100% of the market share, which is sort of the doomsday scenario for interoperability, because at that point the standard people code against will just be "whatever works in chrome, proprietary or not".
I personally do not support apple not allowing other browser engines, just as I do not support them not allowing other ways of installing apps besides the app store, but I also think that them allowing other browser engines will ultimately make the web worse as a side effect.
I personally do not support apple not allowing other browser engines, just as I do not support them not allowing other ways of installing apps besides the app store, but I also think that them allowing other browser engines will ultimately make the web worse as a side effect.
I respect Alex Russell a lot technically but it’s worth noting that as a long-time Google Chrome team member now working on Edge he’s hardly a neutral party. Even in the best good-faith effort, your views will be shaped by what you work on and how that team sees the world.
> Apple is not in it for the web. Quite the opposite, more likely.
As if the worlds largest web ad company is in it "for the web". They are in it as much for control as anyone else.
> Also, I don't see how fighting a potential monoculture with an actual monoculture is a solution.
We're already in a monoculture. And that monoculture is Chrome, not Safari which is a very distant second in comparison.
As if the worlds largest web ad company is in it "for the web". They are in it as much for control as anyone else.
> Also, I don't see how fighting a potential monoculture with an actual monoculture is a solution.
We're already in a monoculture. And that monoculture is Chrome, not Safari which is a very distant second in comparison.
I don't get the argument as well because Apple already dominates by forcing Webkit to every browser on iOS, making everything effectively Safari.
"Apple will reportedly receive 20 billion USD for having Google as the default search engine."
Now there's some easy money. Receiving 20 billion for doing absolutely nothing. To literally keeps things as-is. No product moved, no labor performed, no service provided. Just leave it. And we wire you 20 billion USD.
Simply buying the market in the open, without a care in the world. The things we let companies get away with. Astounding.
Now there's some easy money. Receiving 20 billion for doing absolutely nothing. To literally keeps things as-is. No product moved, no labor performed, no service provided. Just leave it. And we wire you 20 billion USD.
Simply buying the market in the open, without a care in the world. The things we let companies get away with. Astounding.
> Simply buying the market in the open…
This is slightly hyperbolic. Google is buying a default¹. It can be changed.
https://appletoolbox.com/change-default-search-engine-iphone...
This is slightly hyperbolic. Google is buying a default¹. It can be changed.
https://appletoolbox.com/change-default-search-engine-iphone...
Choose from their payola based list of preferences. You can't chose any search engine like on other platforms.
> You can't chose any search engine like on other platforms
With Safari, yes, but Firefox for iOS (for example) allows you to add arbitrary search engines.
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/change-your-default-sea...
With Safari, yes, but Firefox for iOS (for example) allows you to add arbitrary search engines.
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/change-your-default-sea...
Or just install and use xSearch: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/xsearch-for-safari/id157990206...
> No product moved, no labor performed, no service provided.
That's a bit of a myopic view. Apple has invested billions in building a platform and user base, and that is what Google is buying.
That's a bit of a myopic view. Apple has invested billions in building a platform and user base, and that is what Google is buying.
If apple made a homegrown search engine it would be a genuine threat to Google because their diehard userbase would switch to it immediately.
Besides that they also pay Firefox for the same. They are clearly just splashing cash to avoid having any sort of competition threaten them.
Yes, that's what I said: buying users.
[deleted]
I feel like Apple has been quietly & slowly releasing its death grip on PWA use cases.
We've been shipping a B2B, PWA-enabled web app to iOS Safari users for almost 2 years and it all mostly "just works" now. We even have a customer using hand-written provisioning profiles via Azure InTune to roll out PWA web apps to their iPad home screens automatically.
To be fair, figuring out how to do this is not documented in any meaningful way whatsoever. I had to reverse engineer another PWA that already worked on iOS/Safari in order to figure out the right path.
If anything, Apple should be punished for intentionally obfuscating the capabilities of their products. I feel like this is where they are going to weasel their way out of trouble in court - "Oh look if you do this <performs elaborate ceremony no rational person could conceive> then you can actually achieve an open application ecosystem on apple devices".
We've been shipping a B2B, PWA-enabled web app to iOS Safari users for almost 2 years and it all mostly "just works" now. We even have a customer using hand-written provisioning profiles via Azure InTune to roll out PWA web apps to their iPad home screens automatically.
To be fair, figuring out how to do this is not documented in any meaningful way whatsoever. I had to reverse engineer another PWA that already worked on iOS/Safari in order to figure out the right path.
If anything, Apple should be punished for intentionally obfuscating the capabilities of their products. I feel like this is where they are going to weasel their way out of trouble in court - "Oh look if you do this <performs elaborate ceremony no rational person could conceive> then you can actually achieve an open application ecosystem on apple devices".
> To be fair, figuring out how to do this is not documented in any meaningful way whatsoever.
Are there resources you can recommend to other PWA developers? It sounds like there are many people in this thread that haven't pieced it together like you've been able to.
Are there resources you can recommend to other PWA developers? It sounds like there are many people in this thread that haven't pieced it together like you've been able to.
The most effective documentation for me was looking at app.starbucks.com in dev tools.
You can see the experience yourself - Grab an iOS device and navigate to app.starbucks.com. Add it to your Home Screen. Open the new shortcut. Observe this desired behavior. Dev tools will explain how to get there. I'd pay special attention to the meta tags.
You can see the experience yourself - Grab an iOS device and navigate to app.starbucks.com. Add it to your Home Screen. Open the new shortcut. Observe this desired behavior. Dev tools will explain how to get there. I'd pay special attention to the meta tags.
Eh, I think the article and title are really meant to drive "engagement."
Any company, individual, or government will discourage investigation. Sometimes, because they have something to hide, sometimes, because they want to avoid precedent, and sometimes, just because it's a big fat pain in the butt, and they have the resources to interfere.
I'm not saying that Apple is right or wrong, here; just that this particular thing isn't really something to get all worked up over. The people pushing this, have an agenda (as does Apple, or any corporation). They are framing the matter in terms that will fit their perspective.
Any company, individual, or government will discourage investigation. Sometimes, because they have something to hide, sometimes, because they want to avoid precedent, and sometimes, just because it's a big fat pain in the butt, and they have the resources to interfere.
I'm not saying that Apple is right or wrong, here; just that this particular thing isn't really something to get all worked up over. The people pushing this, have an agenda (as does Apple, or any corporation). They are framing the matter in terms that will fit their perspective.
This is the original link (vs a tweet including the link): https://www.catribunal.org.uk/cases/157661223-apple-inc-othe...
I do not care if Apple's practice anti-competitive, as long as the investigation isn't targeting Chromium its efforts are grossly misplaced.
Browser vendors are free to choose their own default search engines and get paid for it just like how Brave search is the default search on brave private
This tweet thread is unnecessarily confusing the two. How does restricting browser engine to webkit decide what browser engines they use?
This tweet thread is unnecessarily confusing the two. How does restricting browser engine to webkit decide what browser engines they use?
Short answer: No market share = no search engine revenue
By: 1. Eliminating browsers ability to differentiate itself 2. Forcing additional costs on the browser vendors to have to develop a second browser specifically for iOS 3. By reserving functionality exclusively for Safari 4. By eroding third party browsers market share by self-preferencing Safari (default install, couldn't set another default browser until recently etc etc)
By: 1. Eliminating browsers ability to differentiate itself 2. Forcing additional costs on the browser vendors to have to develop a second browser specifically for iOS 3. By reserving functionality exclusively for Safari 4. By eroding third party browsers market share by self-preferencing Safari (default install, couldn't set another default browser until recently etc etc)
The worst browser experience I have had continues to be webkit based browsers. They just don't work in enough situations for me to justify leaving Firefox.
That's the fault of devs targeting Chromium implementation rather than the specification itself. You shouldn't use products that do that if you can help it.
How does that relate to WebKit being worse than Firefox specifically if they're both on the same ground of not being Chromium?
We are going backwards in the browser wars. Peek Firefox was the best of times. I heard they restarted the servo project so let's see where that goes.
I am truly torn on this. If Chrome were controlled by an independent company, I would 100% agree. Shame on Apple for dictating the use of the Safari engine on iOS!
But Chrome is not controlled by an independent company. It's controlled by the largest company in the search, video, and advertising markets, and has repeatedly abused that power to degrade functionality for non-Chromium browsers, all while extending Chrome in non-standard non-secure ways.
And this:
> In addition, Apple has been underfunding Safari for the past decade leading to missing critical functionality and a buggy experience for Web App developers thus ensuring that Native Apps, another Apple revenue source, are the only viable solution.
That just seems like nonsense. The Safari team seems to be well-funded, they just have different ideas from Google about what PWAs should be allowed to do. This caused Google to fork the webkit project, and is why things like push notifications are not supported today. It's not that they can't, it's that they won't.
But Chrome is not controlled by an independent company. It's controlled by the largest company in the search, video, and advertising markets, and has repeatedly abused that power to degrade functionality for non-Chromium browsers, all while extending Chrome in non-standard non-secure ways.
And this:
> In addition, Apple has been underfunding Safari for the past decade leading to missing critical functionality and a buggy experience for Web App developers thus ensuring that Native Apps, another Apple revenue source, are the only viable solution.
That just seems like nonsense. The Safari team seems to be well-funded, they just have different ideas from Google about what PWAs should be allowed to do. This caused Google to fork the webkit project, and is why things like push notifications are not supported today. It's not that they can't, it's that they won't.
> The Safari team seems to be well-funded [...]
Meh. Safari is owned by Apple, the richest company in the world and they're beaten by a non-profit(!) who spends ~500 million / yr?
Apple only started properly funding Safari and catching up with Firefox and Chrome when regulators started looking into their practices.
Meh. Safari is owned by Apple, the richest company in the world and they're beaten by a non-profit(!) who spends ~500 million / yr?
Apple only started properly funding Safari and catching up with Firefox and Chrome when regulators started looking into their practices.
> Safari is owned by Apple, the richest company in the world and they're beaten by a non-profit(!) who spends ~500 million / yr?
How can one of the richest men in the world eat peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches, as Bill Gates did while being interviewed for My Next Guest Needs No Introduction with David Letterman? Shouldn't he be eating something with truffle oil, or caviar? To me, Apple having the highest market value of any company doesn't seem like it should be related to the quality of their free web browser at all. I've never heard them answer a question about Safari with "we don't have the money for that," which would make the relationship relevant.
It seems like the same sort of reasoning as: "Apple is the richest company in the world and their company sweatshirts aren't even as good as this sweatshirt company's?" I mean, yeah, a company devoted to the sole purpose of a single thing, with no shareholders even, should expect to be number one at that single thing. I guess it's pretty embarrassing for the Firefox team that they're considered a number two to Google.
As I said in my first comment, Apple disagrees with some others on what should and shouldn't be in a web browser. They haven't implemented push notification because they disagree with their inclusion, not because they can't afford to do it.
> Apple only started properly funding Safari and catching up with Firefox and Chrome when regulators started looking into their practices.
I'm not sure what you're basing this on. Safari was the first browser to achieve 100% Acid3 compliance back in 2008, which was a thing they seemed to care about more than anyone else, although the rest of the browsers caught up soon after. Again, and it doesn't seem I can say this enough: Apple has different priorities than Google or Mozilla do. Those priorities change over time, which might lead you to think they're either pulling ahead of falling behind in the areas on which you're focusing, but they've been pretty steadily developing Safari while keeping memory usage and energy usage low and avoiding what they see as security pitfalls.
They don't deliver the same PWA functionality that Chrome does on purpose, not due to lack of funds or effort.
How can one of the richest men in the world eat peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches, as Bill Gates did while being interviewed for My Next Guest Needs No Introduction with David Letterman? Shouldn't he be eating something with truffle oil, or caviar? To me, Apple having the highest market value of any company doesn't seem like it should be related to the quality of their free web browser at all. I've never heard them answer a question about Safari with "we don't have the money for that," which would make the relationship relevant.
It seems like the same sort of reasoning as: "Apple is the richest company in the world and their company sweatshirts aren't even as good as this sweatshirt company's?" I mean, yeah, a company devoted to the sole purpose of a single thing, with no shareholders even, should expect to be number one at that single thing. I guess it's pretty embarrassing for the Firefox team that they're considered a number two to Google.
As I said in my first comment, Apple disagrees with some others on what should and shouldn't be in a web browser. They haven't implemented push notification because they disagree with their inclusion, not because they can't afford to do it.
> Apple only started properly funding Safari and catching up with Firefox and Chrome when regulators started looking into their practices.
I'm not sure what you're basing this on. Safari was the first browser to achieve 100% Acid3 compliance back in 2008, which was a thing they seemed to care about more than anyone else, although the rest of the browsers caught up soon after. Again, and it doesn't seem I can say this enough: Apple has different priorities than Google or Mozilla do. Those priorities change over time, which might lead you to think they're either pulling ahead of falling behind in the areas on which you're focusing, but they've been pretty steadily developing Safari while keeping memory usage and energy usage low and avoiding what they see as security pitfalls.
They don't deliver the same PWA functionality that Chrome does on purpose, not due to lack of funds or effort.
I feel 2 ways about this. If Apple is forced to open up, Chrome will take everything. If Apple can keep Safari in place, there are at least 2 browsers. OTOH, it’s a crap thing to do to your customers, forcing a browser on them.
I used to feel like this, however I think it's more important for consumers to have choice on this rather than not.
I've come to the conclusion that competition is the only way to solve the issues around Safari not supporting all PWA features. Even if that result is a greater move to a Blink as the dominant engine.
I've come to the conclusion that competition is the only way to solve the issues around Safari not supporting all PWA features. Even if that result is a greater move to a Blink as the dominant engine.
There are no cross-platform WebKit based browsers anymore anyway. When QtWebKit was eliminated, the last remaining ones switched to QtWebEngine (Blink/Chromium).
For there to be effective competition, there needs to be WebKit based browsers on all platforms (Windows, Android, macOS, Linux, iOS). Otherwise, it's a non-starter.
For there to be effective competition, there needs to be WebKit based browsers on all platforms (Windows, Android, macOS, Linux, iOS). Otherwise, it's a non-starter.
> If Apple is forced to open up, Chrome will take everything.
This won't happen. The platform default is one of the most decisive factor for the market share and Apple has a full control here. Unless they do a critical mistake at IE6 level, Chrome won't likely have above 10% iOS market share.
This won't happen. The platform default is one of the most decisive factor for the market share and Apple has a full control here. Unless they do a critical mistake at IE6 level, Chrome won't likely have above 10% iOS market share.
> The platform default is one of the most decisive factor for the market share
That statement is much, much less true than it once was -- some quick searching puts Chrome at about 66% of desktop market share (despite neither of the two dominant desktop OSes shipping Chrome as a default), and the two default options (Chromium-based Edge and Safari) combining for about 25% of desktop market share.
That statement is much, much less true than it once was -- some quick searching puts Chrome at about 66% of desktop market share (despite neither of the two dominant desktop OSes shipping Chrome as a default), and the two default options (Chromium-based Edge and Safari) combining for about 25% of desktop market share.
That's because MS made a irrrcoverable level of mistake over a decade. They wanted IE6 to die in favor of their proprietary platform.
Apple did learn from this mistake and kept a minimal level of investment as well as prohibited competition via full control of App Store, which effectively forced most websites to support WebKit. Even though they did not invest that much on Safari over a similar length of period through these ways and still maintains the lead on MacOS. Which in fact proves my point.
Apple did learn from this mistake and kept a minimal level of investment as well as prohibited competition via full control of App Store, which effectively forced most websites to support WebKit. Even though they did not invest that much on Safari over a similar length of period through these ways and still maintains the lead on MacOS. Which in fact proves my point.
Safari still has very good market share on MacOS so I don't think that is true.
Additionally while Safari remains underfunded and full of bugs it's not placing little competitive pressure on Chrome while ensuring that browsers that actually compete like Firefox are starved of search engine revenue.
Apple's position is bad for the Web, bad for Web Apps and bad for Safari. If they have competition then Apple will be forced to fund Safari/Webkit properly and deliver a reliable/feature rich browser.
Additionally while Safari remains underfunded and full of bugs it's not placing little competitive pressure on Chrome while ensuring that browsers that actually compete like Firefox are starved of search engine revenue.
Apple's position is bad for the Web, bad for Web Apps and bad for Safari. If they have competition then Apple will be forced to fund Safari/Webkit properly and deliver a reliable/feature rich browser.
Apple should be forced to show users a screen where they select the browser they want to install when purchasing or upgrading iOS. There are more browsers than Safari and Chrome.
For god's sake NO, that would be the final nail in the coffin of Google owning web standards. 99% of users would choose Chrome because it's what they recognize most, and I assume in this scenario you're imagining this is actually different browsers using their own rendering engines.
I don't understand why in this world of Google's near monopoly on the web, people are more focused on government intervention to prevent Apple's pithy 9% marketshare for holding back poor Google.
I don't understand why in this world of Google's near monopoly on the web, people are more focused on government intervention to prevent Apple's pithy 9% marketshare for holding back poor Google.
While we're wishing for things that won't happen, Google should also be forced to divest Chrome.
Not necessarily. If Brave can somehow present that it blocks ads and trackers many users will choose it over Chrome.
Google will be able to change standards very quickly to their licking and change their websites (google search, youtube, etc.) to only work with their browsers effectively killing any competition.
Brave has blocked YouTube ads for years.
Brave relies on Google for browser engineering.
Apple customers don't care. They have money to burn on a luxury good, and the apple cult is just like the Tesla cult. People cannot physically hear the criticisms.
There will be no consequences.
There will be no consequences.
Why post the tweet and not the article?
I want to move one of my applications to web platform. Guess what, not possible unless I ignore Jesus Phone and I think I will ignore it even though it will hurt sales.
On Android you can still install Brave or other browsers.
Brave for iOS: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/brave-private-web-browser/id10...
Many other browsers are available for iOS too. (Not to be confused with rendering engines, of course.)
Many other browsers are available for iOS too. (Not to be confused with rendering engines, of course.)
But they're not available in actuality are they? So why even share this information as if these browsers exist in full on iOS when they dont? The pedantry is deceitful in this case.
And yet Microsoft is a monopoly just for including IE. Nevermind that they never stopped anyone from installing what they wanted on Windows.
Microsoft had almost the entire PC market. Apple doesn’t have over 90% in any market afaik.
iPhone market share in the UK and US is a little over 50%, but in some demographics significantly higher.
The point is though, you can't install an alternative browser engine on iOS, you could on windows. So it's a bit of an Apples to Oranges of a comparison (no pun intended).
There is clear anti-competitive behaviour, even if they aren't a "true monopoly".
The point is though, you can't install an alternative browser engine on iOS, you could on windows. So it's a bit of an Apples to Oranges of a comparison (no pun intended).
There is clear anti-competitive behaviour, even if they aren't a "true monopoly".
Not all anti-competitive acts are illegal, nor should they be. Building a sustainable competitive advantage is business school 101 for 60 years. Vertical or horizontal restraints are typically evaluated case by case based on whether the actor is a monopoly.
You don't need to have 100% of a market to abuse your size with anticompetitive behavior. The judge mentioned this during the Epic v. Apple lawsuit.
The lawsuit that Apple mostly won.
Sure- though there was just an appeal hearing in November. The judge also warned that Apple uses anticompetitive behavior and is on the road to becoming a monopoly.
> While Apple is not considered a monopoly and did not engage in antitrust behavior on nine of ten counts, Apple’s conduct in enforcing anti-steering restrictions is anticompetitive.
> A coalition of 35 states, Microsoft, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and several other groups filed amicus briefs in support of Epic's position, arguing that Apple held a monopoly and thus that Epic should prevail in its lawsuit.
> While Apple is not considered a monopoly and did not engage in antitrust behavior on nine of ten counts, Apple’s conduct in enforcing anti-steering restrictions is anticompetitive.
> A coalition of 35 states, Microsoft, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and several other groups filed amicus briefs in support of Epic's position, arguing that Apple held a monopoly and thus that Epic should prevail in its lawsuit.
Amicus briefs aren’t worth diddly when they’re factually incorrect.
The judge also did not suggest Apple was on the road to monopoly. She correctly pointed out one anticompetitive practice and forced Apple to change that policy. Which they have.
The judge also did not suggest Apple was on the road to monopoly. She correctly pointed out one anticompetitive practice and forced Apple to change that policy. Which they have.
This is a pointless argument for hundreds of millions of iPhone users that cannot exercise their right to free market.
They are exercising it by chosing to buy an iPhone.
You act like there is a choice. "Here is an Android device or here is an iPhone." We need to protect iPhone users because the market has determined only Android and iOS are viable mobile operating systems at the moment.
While true, you are willingly choosing much more locked and walled ecosystem, with owning company well known for its practices. Its not something hidden, heck its being marketed to tech users as a feature.
Apple has strong proposition in many ways, but if you want more freedom that's definitely not the company you should be buying products from, not now nor in near future.
Apple has strong proposition in many ways, but if you want more freedom that's definitely not the company you should be buying products from, not now nor in near future.
The profitable upper middle class segment is absolutely dominated by Apple.
Microsoft had more of a monopoly at that time than apple have now.
The Mac and other platforms at that time was tiny, its not like today where its more of a duopoly with iOS and android.
The Mac and other platforms at that time was tiny, its not like today where its more of a duopoly with iOS and android.
>"I’m truly scared of Chrome."
Then do not use it. I have it only for testing. My default browser is Brave.
Then do not use it. I have it only for testing. My default browser is Brave.
...which uses Blink, which is controlled by Google. And that is the problem. Same as when it was IE.
> … which uses Blink
… which is open source and therefore forkable. Google forked Blink from Webkit. What makes you think that Brave and Microsoft can’t do the same?
… which is open source and therefore forkable. Google forked Blink from Webkit. What makes you think that Brave and Microsoft can’t do the same?
>which is open source and therefore forkable
Unless you have the resources of FAANG, forking Blink is a pipedream. Brave doesn't have the resources, and Microsoft already gave up that dream. Web Browsers are insanely complex and fast moving; and maintaining a "living" fork of Blink is difficult as upstream doesn't make it particularly easy to downstream changes after you've made any sort of modifications.
Unless you have the resources of FAANG, forking Blink is a pipedream. Brave doesn't have the resources, and Microsoft already gave up that dream. Web Browsers are insanely complex and fast moving; and maintaining a "living" fork of Blink is difficult as upstream doesn't make it particularly easy to downstream changes after you've made any sort of modifications.
> Web Browsers are insanely complex and fast moving
Which ironically, if say a major platform that everyone had to support slowed down their pace of development to be more conservative so you couldn't jump on features released two weeks ago that would be better for the browser landscape as a whole.
Which ironically, if say a major platform that everyone had to support slowed down their pace of development to be more conservative so you couldn't jump on features released two weeks ago that would be better for the browser landscape as a whole.
And the cost to support this fork is increasing with time as Google constantly adds anti-features.
That nobody will code against forks that lack Google proprietary features.
> starved several browsers of funding
Do we know which browsers? Certainly not Firefox and Chrome.
Do we know which browsers? Certainly not Firefox and Chrome.
Safari is way faster than Chrome on macOS
Safari is way faster than Chrome on iOS
Chrome on iOS is Safari but with Chrome skin.
Apple does not allow other browser engines or does not even allow most Safari features to other browsers...
Apple does not allow other browser engines or does not even allow most Safari features to other browsers...
Chrome and Firefox may use WebKit but have very different looks and feels and some different functionality. They’re not just “skins”.
They use a Cocoa feature called [WkWebView] (https://developer.apple.com/documentation/webkit/wkwebview) which is an embedded webkit browser. Any functionality that differs from Safari is not part of the actual "browser". It's just "skin" on top of it. (Bookmark syncing, etc)
WkWebView is a web renderer and partial navigator, it's not a browser.
My point is that people are really stretching the term "skin". Bookmark syncing, tab & window management, history management, security management etc. all are features of a browser, and they have a major impact on the UX of that browser. They are WHY there are still users of Firefox or Chrome on iOS! They're not "skin" features, which typically imply minor look & feel related items.
My point is that people are really stretching the term "skin". Bookmark syncing, tab & window management, history management, security management etc. all are features of a browser, and they have a major impact on the UX of that browser. They are WHY there are still users of Firefox or Chrome on iOS! They're not "skin" features, which typically imply minor look & feel related items.
Not really different. They even share bugs.
If Safari team messes up their rendering engine, then iOS update, and it is broken for every iOS browser...
If Safari team messes up their rendering engine, then iOS update, and it is broken for every iOS browser...
Do you use any of them regularly? I do. They're very different UX-wise.
My point is that users don't really care about the common rendering engine. It doesn't have much impact on the day to day UX.
My point is that users don't really care about the common rendering engine. It doesn't have much impact on the day to day UX.
Chrome on iOS is just a skin on top of WebKit.
Try to build a web browser with WebKit. I assure you it’s a lot more work than a skin.
See, if you had said that Safari was way faster than Chrome on macOS, you would have an argument...
Y just wait until I get 500rep Ive ur name now :p
Edit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34501173#34504508
Edit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34501173#34504508
> Apple will reportedly receive 20 billion USD for having Google as the default search engine. Presumably, this is why they are fighting so hard against having any meaningful competition on iOS.
Dizzying rent-seeking fees
Dizzying rent-seeking fees
I have a naive question..what would happen if google simply stopped paying this money, and let the user decide?...I guess it wouldn't affect them much, google is still the best search engine.
Bing was the default 2012 - 2017. Apparently Google found that it is well worth it to them to pay these massive amounts.
Google is worried that Apple would then release a search engine and that would be worse for them than the somple payment.
Except Google rarely/barely is the best search engine anymore.
It's also 20 billion Apple has to do almost nothing for, except ban the other browsers and set google as the default search engine in Safari. It's a significant proportion of their yearly profit.
This doesn’t make sense. There are other browsers on the App Store and, although they have to use Safari’s browser engine, they’re free to prioritise search engine preferences as they see fit.
The real versions of Firefox, Chrome and Edge etc have been banned. Instead Apple forces them to create new browsers which use their controlled, locked and unmodifiable WebView removing the majority of the ways that these browsers can differentiate themselves while providing features exclusive to Safari (like the ability to install Web Apps).
This ensures that none of the "browsers" can compete on iOS and this obvious by comparing browser market share of the same browser between iOS and Android.
This ensures that none of the "browsers" can compete on iOS and this obvious by comparing browser market share of the same browser between iOS and Android.
To be precise, the thing that makes a browser meaningfully different (the engine, Firefox has Gecko, Chrome has Blink, Edge also uses Blink, although Blink is often identified as chromium) isn't allowed to exist on iOS.
As you say, Apple only allows their own WebView to exist on iOS, which is an engine they both control entirely and is heavily locked down. Not helping matters is that WebView runs on WebKit (Safari uses WebKit as well), which is these days pretty much the equivalent of Internet Explorer in terms of browser shenanigans[0].
The result is that the only real thing you get from Firefox/Chrome/Edge on iOS is access to your synchronized bookmarks. Apple doesn't offer any form of a WebExtension implementation either to these engines (instead rolling their own version, which they confusingly also call WebExtension), and none of the previously mentioned browsers are even allowed to add the universal form of WebExtension support to WebKit. The result is that iOS also remains one of the few platforms where meaningful adblocking remains a crapshoot (entirely beneficial to Apple of course).
[0]: To be somewhat fair here, WebKit *is* very useful for more embedded/low powered devices that aren't intended to access a lot of websites to begin with. There are some uses for WebKit, IE had none near the end.
As you say, Apple only allows their own WebView to exist on iOS, which is an engine they both control entirely and is heavily locked down. Not helping matters is that WebView runs on WebKit (Safari uses WebKit as well), which is these days pretty much the equivalent of Internet Explorer in terms of browser shenanigans[0].
The result is that the only real thing you get from Firefox/Chrome/Edge on iOS is access to your synchronized bookmarks. Apple doesn't offer any form of a WebExtension implementation either to these engines (instead rolling their own version, which they confusingly also call WebExtension), and none of the previously mentioned browsers are even allowed to add the universal form of WebExtension support to WebKit. The result is that iOS also remains one of the few platforms where meaningful adblocking remains a crapshoot (entirely beneficial to Apple of course).
[0]: To be somewhat fair here, WebKit *is* very useful for more embedded/low powered devices that aren't intended to access a lot of websites to begin with. There are some uses for WebKit, IE had none near the end.
[deleted]
You couldn't set any if these alternative browsers as the default until fairly recently. That ensured their market share was kept to a minimum and people have gotten so used to Safari few people find it worth switching now.
Also, Safari has some super powers compared to the others on iOS (things the other browsers are simply not allowed or even able to do like Add to homescreen)
Also, Safari has some super powers compared to the others on iOS (things the other browsers are simply not allowed or even able to do like Add to homescreen)
There are no other browsers on iOS. They're all Safari wearing a different surface mask.
And even those exist only on sufferance of Apples reviewers.
And even those exist only on sufferance of Apples reviewers.
(Unless of course they prioritize something that Apple deems to be against their rules.)
It pushes proprietary features, from what I know it starts enforcing some analytics/ads without possibility to block it out and there are other thing too, but since I’m not really an user I don’t track them deeply.
Based on my personal experiences with IE, ActiveX, Adobe Flash and not being able to fill my taxes without Microsoft license (that was around 800$ back then for me not adjusted for inflation) I am afraid the same will happen with Chrome once it gets enough ground.
“Hey, sorry but we can’t sell you toothbrush because you’re using Safari/Firefox/Vivaldi/whatever. Please switch to Chrome and continue with your tracked and dissected purchase route.”
Is there any other anti-Chrome bastion than iOS’ Safari?
Old E2E runner installed Google Chrome on my machine (didn’t even ask but that’s user space on dev machine so whatever) which grew into my MacOS machine. It cannot run in background but there is another daemon that constantly updates it. Multiple times a day I get notification that new service has been installed to run in background.
I’m not sure if that’s something I want to fight for.