The top two lines are the fastest devices available in the iOS and Android ecosystems each year, and when using Samsung S-series devices, I have made sure to pick the faster of the Qualcomm vs. Samsung Semi parts (both are used historically, but Qualcomm is most prevalent in the US). As explained in the piece, the bottom two lines are taken from representative devices in the mid-range and low-end price categories. There's wild variation in those market segments due to short-run discounting, and the most meaningful uplift in CPU speeds has coincided with 5G radios (for obvious signal-processing reasons). Because the lowest-priced segment doesn't yet feature 5G, those processors have remained stubbornly slow, even if they get cheaper every year.
Mobile devices rarely last beyond the 5 year mark, although the age span has been increasing in the past several years and the resale market is booming thanks to inflation, geopolitical instability, and a global cost-of-living crisis.
Sucks to be corresponding via The Second Worst Website In The World (TM), but here we are. Hope all's well on your end.
A minor correction from Edge's perspective: we've participated in OT using Phi models, but have not shipped to Stable, and are unlikely to given the current shape of things. Developers have not given us feedback that they're relaxed about compatibility, but I would obviously welcome that sort of data in case anyone has it to hand.
That's the inspiring thing about the EU and UK regulatory frameworks: the penalties can be more than a slap on the wrist. Apple is playing a dangerous game by continuing to flout EU law and pursue a maximalist, scorched-earth strategy. Reputation matters, and they are not making friends by re-upping false arguments at every turn.
"TL;DR: The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has officially designated Apple as having Strategic Market Status (SMS). After four years investigating Apple’s restrictions on browser engines and web apps, the CMA now has statutory authority to enforce remedies proposed in its Market Investigation Reference completed this year.
The most important outcomes being:
- Apple can be compelled to allow third-party browsers on iOS to use their own engines.
- Apple can be compelled to provide equivalent access to functionality for browsers using their own browser engines.
- Apple can be compelled to let third-party browsers install and manage web apps using their own engines.
- Apple can be compelled to remove barriers to web app adoption, such as implementing a web app equivalent to smart banners or install prompts in iOS Safari."
It's not insane that you have to explain it to me, because your premise is _wrong_. Go look at the founding documents for web SDOs. Voluntary adoption is foundational to the entire effort, and as I keep pointing out, Apple is the only party that has undermined it:
It will seem odd to most, but my big concerns about Chrome relate to Android and ChromeOS. In neither environment did Chrome win share competitively. I think this has made them weaker and less useful, and that was mirrored in the tremendous difficulty we had in getting expansions of web capabilities done within the Chrome team, nevermind what I am documenting in this most recent post.
Sadly, the CrOS problem will be partially resolved when Google trashes it with Android rebasing in upcoming releases. On the Android side, Google is still withholding WebAPK support from competitors (suppressing PWAs on Android) and has failed to follow Apple's lead on hotseat browser replacement when choice screens are shown in the EU.
But neither of the bad effects are nearly as structural or impactful as Apple's out-and-out suppression of the web on mobile, because wealthy people carry iPhones and they have all the power:
Original author of the article here; I went out on a limb to document a bit of this in a footnote to a post a few years ago. Saying that it is unusual to call this behaviour out is a drastic understatement:
I'm simply pointing out that Apple declined to try to constructively solve the problems developers expressed, demurred from engaging in design work in many areas, and did not ship alternatives instead (as it could have, and did in the past when Safari/WebKit were not on a starvation budget).
The downsides to this are not lost on me. Why do you think I'm making an issue of it publicly now? We tried literally everything else. This is last resort stuff. The goal is always more collaboration, and through it, better, better-funded, and more capable browsers. Apple is the unique obstacle to all of that today.
That's simply a misunderstanding of how features come to the web. There is no immaculate conception for web APIs. No magical room in which they are dreamt up, or spring fully-formed from the head of Zeus.
Instead, they come from open, honest, iterative design (when done well), and shipping ahead of others is risky, but that's why we designed the Blink Launch Process to demand so much pre-work (specs, tests, origin trials, good faith attempts to include other vendors in design, etc.) in order to launch that way.
TL;DR is that the premise of the argument is false, or at least almost entirely so, and deprives Apple of agency, when in fact it has all the power in the equation.
https://infrequently.org/2025/11/performance-inequality-gap-...
The top two lines are the fastest devices available in the iOS and Android ecosystems each year, and when using Samsung S-series devices, I have made sure to pick the faster of the Qualcomm vs. Samsung Semi parts (both are used historically, but Qualcomm is most prevalent in the US). As explained in the piece, the bottom two lines are taken from representative devices in the mid-range and low-end price categories. There's wild variation in those market segments due to short-run discounting, and the most meaningful uplift in CPU speeds has coincided with 5G radios (for obvious signal-processing reasons). Because the lowest-priced segment doesn't yet feature 5G, those processors have remained stubbornly slow, even if they get cheaper every year.