Safari isn’t the problem, but the lack of browser choice in iOS is(kenneth.io)
kenneth.io
Safari isn’t the problem, but the lack of browser choice in iOS is
https://kenneth.io/blog/2015/07/03/safari-isnt-the-problem-but-the-lack-of-browser-choice-in-ios-is/
228 comments
So, make your site completely inaccessible under iOS? Your users are going to blame you, not Apple.
Either it pays off to take a dependency on Apple or it doesn't. The costs of the dependency are both short-term - building apps for the Apple app store and supporting Mobile Safari - and long term in the form of Apple changing it's "API" arbitrarily in ways detrimental to your business.
My point is that your business model is what you can control and change and the odds of changing Apple's business model without changing the nature of the market are zero. Changing your business model can change the market.
Finally, if your business's customers are more loyal to orthogonal aspects of Apple than to your business then it is better to think of those customers as Apple's rather than your business's. There's nothing to be gained by wishing it were otherwise.
My point is that your business model is what you can control and change and the odds of changing Apple's business model without changing the nature of the market are zero. Changing your business model can change the market.
Finally, if your business's customers are more loyal to orthogonal aspects of Apple than to your business then it is better to think of those customers as Apple's rather than your business's. There's nothing to be gained by wishing it were otherwise.
Apple serves its Users not Developers, most of whom appreciate there's only 1 icon they need to click on to access the Internet. Only developers think that having multiple browsers to choose from is a value-add - for most users it just adds unnecessary confusion and complexity.
Killing Flash wasn't a FU for Flash Developers. The only reason why Flash was banned was because it provided a poor experience on a touchscreen device, performed horribly and was a battery drain.
The way to get Apple's attention is for Google or Firefox to develop a superior browser and browsing experience on Android, that users take notice is missing from iOS and is regarded as a USP for Android.
Killing Flash wasn't a FU for Flash Developers. The only reason why Flash was banned was because it provided a poor experience on a touchscreen device, performed horribly and was a battery drain.
The way to get Apple's attention is for Google or Firefox to develop a superior browser and browsing experience on Android, that users take notice is missing from iOS and is regarded as a USP for Android.
> Apple serves its Users not Developers, most of whom appreciate there's only 1 icon they need to click on to access the Internet. Only developers think that having multiple browsers to choose from is a value-add - for most users it just adds unnecessary confusion and complexity.
And Apple's restriction has nothing to do with "only 1 icon"; you can ship competing browsers, and in fact Google ships a "Chrome" on iOS.
The restriction is on the rendering engine.
And note that this restriction does not "serve the users". Users who want a faster, or safer, or more compatible browser with some favorite site of theirs that is pushing the envelope on mobile apps via the web are not able to use a better browsers with a better rendering engine.
Look at how many people run Chrome and Firefox on Windows and OS X, when there is an existing browser available. They are not all "developers"; they are users looking for faster rendering, more compatibility with services that are pushing the envelope of web apps, a safer experience, and the like.
And Apple's restriction has nothing to do with "only 1 icon"; you can ship competing browsers, and in fact Google ships a "Chrome" on iOS.
The restriction is on the rendering engine.
And note that this restriction does not "serve the users". Users who want a faster, or safer, or more compatible browser with some favorite site of theirs that is pushing the envelope on mobile apps via the web are not able to use a better browsers with a better rendering engine.
Look at how many people run Chrome and Firefox on Windows and OS X, when there is an existing browser available. They are not all "developers"; they are users looking for faster rendering, more compatibility with services that are pushing the envelope of web apps, a safer experience, and the like.
Sadly the Google Chrome on iOS is just a UI over the safari engine. Apple won't let Google port their web engine over to iOS like Google did for OSX. This means that Google Chrome on iOS is stuck with however Apple decides to render the web.
That is exactly what lambda is saying... The choice of browser engine is a facade.
> Apple serves its Users not Developers, most of whom appreciate there's only 1 icon they need to click on to access the Internet. Only developers think that having multiple browsers to choose from is a value-add - for most users it just adds unnecessary confusion and complexity.
Now replace "Apple" with "Microsoft" in that sentence.
Now replace "Apple" with "Microsoft" in that sentence.
First, I think EU was wrong on Microsoft's case with IE integration. At the end of the day, a superior Chrome decimated IE's dominance, not EU's fine or mandatory browser chooser.
Second, at the time IE was stale beyond belief and quite obviously inventing compatibility issues just to further its own dominance. Safari team have done none such thing, they just move at their own pace, doing the usual Apple thing, you can complain about their obliviousness but still attribute malice? That's rich. Webkit is opensource FFS.
Second, at the time IE was stale beyond belief and quite obviously inventing compatibility issues just to further its own dominance. Safari team have done none such thing, they just move at their own pace, doing the usual Apple thing, you can complain about their obliviousness but still attribute malice? That's rich. Webkit is opensource FFS.
Firefox peaked at like 40% market share back in 2007 / 2008, before Chrome was even a thing.
The case against IE was not that Microsoft bundled it with the OS. Its completely different from what Safari on iOS is. The problem with IE back in 2000 was that Microsoft was:
1. Bundling their browser with their OS. 2. Had 90% of the browser market share as a result of (1). 3. Using that market share to break web standards and implement proprietary IE only features that broke html for everyone else and made it impossible to compete, because if you made a standards compliant web browser in 2002 it would not render pages properly that were designed for IE.
I don't exactly know what made the US fed care so much about preserving web standards over a lot of other violated standards by monopolistic entrenched interests, but their suit was entirely about Microsoft using its position as an overwhelming market dominator of web browsers to usurp web standards.
Apple really can't do that. Safari's market share, even as the only iOS browser engine, is peanuts. All they are doing is making their own platform irrelevant, and since they are not doing the whole "proprietary web that cannot render right in Chrome" thing, they aren't an antitrust case for being incompetent.
The case against IE was not that Microsoft bundled it with the OS. Its completely different from what Safari on iOS is. The problem with IE back in 2000 was that Microsoft was:
1. Bundling their browser with their OS. 2. Had 90% of the browser market share as a result of (1). 3. Using that market share to break web standards and implement proprietary IE only features that broke html for everyone else and made it impossible to compete, because if you made a standards compliant web browser in 2002 it would not render pages properly that were designed for IE.
I don't exactly know what made the US fed care so much about preserving web standards over a lot of other violated standards by monopolistic entrenched interests, but their suit was entirely about Microsoft using its position as an overwhelming market dominator of web browsers to usurp web standards.
Apple really can't do that. Safari's market share, even as the only iOS browser engine, is peanuts. All they are doing is making their own platform irrelevant, and since they are not doing the whole "proprietary web that cannot render right in Chrome" thing, they aren't an antitrust case for being incompetent.
What? The antitrust case against Microsoft had absolutely nothing to do with web standards.
You can read all about it here (search for Netscape): http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
Even when the EU looked into IE specifically, they weren't directly concerned with web standards: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-09-15_en.htm?local...
You can read all about it here (search for Netscape): http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
Even when the EU looked into IE specifically, they weren't directly concerned with web standards: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-09-15_en.htm?local...
> Using that market share to break web standards and implement proprietary IE only features that broke html for everyone else and made it impossible to compete, because if you made a standards compliant web browser in 2002 it would not render pages properly that were designed for IE.
Well, Chrome is doing exactly that today. Extending HTML with proprietary features, leading to situatons where websites work "best in Chrome", even today.
Well, Chrome is doing exactly that today. Extending HTML with proprietary features, leading to situatons where websites work "best in Chrome", even today.
The real difference is utterly unrelated to all that.
The reason Microsoft was on the hook was because it was a software vender forcing its choice. Apple is a hardware+software vendor, and when you own both the software and the hardware, you can make more restrictive choices and are not open to the same class of laws.
it's dumb, but that's the main legal difference here as to why the microsoft case doesn't apply to apple.
The reason Microsoft was on the hook was because it was a software vender forcing its choice. Apple is a hardware+software vendor, and when you own both the software and the hardware, you can make more restrictive choices and are not open to the same class of laws.
it's dumb, but that's the main legal difference here as to why the microsoft case doesn't apply to apple.
I would argue more that Firefox opened the door and Chrome entered.
Preventing other rendering engines is Apple trying to leverage the strength of its iOS platform to help control the future of the internet. Nothing more, nothing less.
I can understand their wanting to have some say on what may be the sole future platform, but lets not pretend it's for some altruistic reason.
I can understand their wanting to have some say on what may be the sole future platform, but lets not pretend it's for some altruistic reason.
I don't think this is true. I doubt they would have a problem with someone implementing their own DOM rendering engine within their own app.
The real restriction is on executing JavaScript, scripting language execution isn't allowed except around some exceptions for Lua in game engines.
The real restriction is on executing JavaScript, scripting language execution isn't allowed except around some exceptions for Lua in game engines.
"Apple in 2015 is exactly the same company as Microsoft in 1998." OK, gotcha. Substantiation would be nice to see, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
Google and Mozilla have developed superior browsers for android. The browsers are the only thing I miss now that I've switched to iPhone.
The issue is not "one button," the issue is power management. Even in OS X, there is a noticeable difference in the energy efficiency of Safari vs. Chrome or Firefox. That matters way more on a mobile phone.
If users installed Chrome, and their battery died an hour earlier or more, would they blame Chrome? Most would not. Most people have no idea that different versions of the application (a browser) can have that large of a difference in power drain.
If users installed Chrome, and their battery died an hour earlier or more, would they blame Chrome? Most would not. Most people have no idea that different versions of the application (a browser) can have that large of a difference in power drain.
Oh, the beauty of you're too stupid to have choices do I won't give you any choice mindset
>most of whom appreciate there's only 1 icon they need to click on to access the Internet.
That's clearly bs though. Most of those could continue to have one icon they can click. Nobody is forcing two more icons on them. A page from Windows history - for a long time even though alternative browsers were always available people continued to click on the one blue e icon until IE languished more each passing day and alternatives got better and better. Apple could keep safari top notch and most will not realize that alternatives exist. But if they don't (as current status quo implies they're slower to catch up with standards and fix bugs) people switch and progress continues.
That's clearly bs though. Most of those could continue to have one icon they can click. Nobody is forcing two more icons on them. A page from Windows history - for a long time even though alternative browsers were always available people continued to click on the one blue e icon until IE languished more each passing day and alternatives got better and better. Apple could keep safari top notch and most will not realize that alternatives exist. But if they don't (as current status quo implies they're slower to catch up with standards and fix bugs) people switch and progress continues.
> The way to get Apple's attention is for Google or Firefox
> to develop a superior browser and browsing experience on
> Android, that users take notice is missing from iOS and is
> regarded as a USP for Android.
I think not suffering from websites saying "sorry, iOS is not supported" qualifies as a superior browsing experience.
I think not suffering from websites saying "sorry, iOS is not supported" qualifies as a superior browsing experience.
But Safari for iOS is still pretty standards compliant, performant and modern, and far better than Android as a whole when you consider the huge chunk of Android users on an old version of Android that will never see an update (the same users who will just use the default baked in browser). Saying iOS isn't supported would generally be artificial constraints on the part of the site builder on principle, not an actual practical issue with serving them a web page.
You'd easily be shown to be the asshole when a jailbreaker or someone with a proxy spoofed their user agent and loaded your page just fine. Not supporting a browser without a valid technical reason that the layperson can ever sort of understand will totally undermine your position.
You'd easily be shown to be the asshole when a jailbreaker or someone with a proxy spoofed their user agent and loaded your page just fine. Not supporting a browser without a valid technical reason that the layperson can ever sort of understand will totally undermine your position.
FUD! https://developer.android.com/about/dashboards/index.html
Only 5.9% of Android users are on obsolete 2.x. 5.1% are on 4.0.x, for which Chrome was just EOL'ed at version 42 (http://blog.chromium.org/2015/03/freezing-chrome-for-ice-cre...), which compares very favorably to the current and previous versions of Safari (http://caniuse.com/#compare=chrome+42,safari+7,safari+7.1,sa...).
Only 5.9% of Android users are on obsolete 2.x. 5.1% are on 4.0.x, for which Chrome was just EOL'ed at version 42 (http://blog.chromium.org/2015/03/freezing-chrome-for-ice-cre...), which compares very favorably to the current and previous versions of Safari (http://caniuse.com/#compare=chrome+42,safari+7,safari+7.1,sa...).
Sure if enough popular Internet properties targeting the mobile web decided to commit commercial suicide and started purposely ignoring one of its most lucrative user-bases. Should enough websites do this, I'd expect it would just increase the appeal of native Apps.
Ultimately I'd think the only noticable effect it would have is the 2s it takes users to navigate away from the site to never return again.
Ultimately I'd think the only noticable effect it would have is the 2s it takes users to navigate away from the site to never return again.
Reading the threads on this page has really solidified for me that this is the exact same phenomenon as the IE winter. Your comment (and a few others) are word for word the argument for why everybody had to keep supporting IE6 for all those years. You're totally right, of course; it's just a shame because we were just beginning to get excited that this problem had been solved!
This was solidified for me years ago: back when people used to get worked up about Apple vs Android[1], any talk about the negatives of restricting browser choice, keyboard choice, etc was met with "not everyone wants a platform that they can completely hack to run Gentoo lol, most people just want a phone that works". Hearing people say that on HN without even a hint of self-awareness of the actual danger of arbitrarily limiting choice on a platform was shocking, but I got over it years ago.
[1] For the life of me, I have never understood how childish one has to be to have an _emotional response_ to something like that. Whenever people would ask me my opinion and I'd state why I chose X over Y, they'd project "Wow you really hate Apple" onto me for some reason.
[1] For the life of me, I have never understood how childish one has to be to have an _emotional response_ to something like that. Whenever people would ask me my opinion and I'd state why I chose X over Y, they'd project "Wow you really hate Apple" onto me for some reason.
And one way your serve users is by enabling developers to produce compelling content for them, instead of using them as leverage to extort developers into walled gardens.
Try selling cutting off more than 50% of the audience to your manager.
If there's no business case, there's no business case. That's just business. Since it's just business, there's nothing to complain about because it's just business. On the other hand, signing a petition isn't business and Apple will ignore it because...well it isn't business. All of that is ok by me. I think it is unfortunate if people waste energy wishing it was otherwise rather than getting down to business.
If your business has a dependency on Apple, your options are limited. If you have a manager, your options are to do as your manager directs; or not and run the risks; or find another job.
If your business has a dependency on Apple, your options are limited. If you have a manager, your options are to do as your manager directs; or not and run the risks; or find another job.
"Business" is a big word and it means a lot. And nothing is "just business." What's the point in even saying that, except to paint with some rhetoric that assumes you are just and correct in the first place? "It's just business" is not an argument, it's a trite excuse for ceding responsibility.
'Business" captures:
1. That Apple isn't a nice person or a mean person because Apple is an "it" not a "they."
2. That the only important thing is running a sound business and that decisions are ruthlessly grounded in economics.
3. That none of it is personal.
1. That Apple isn't a nice person or a mean person because Apple is an "it" not a "they."
2. That the only important thing is running a sound business and that decisions are ruthlessly grounded in economics.
3. That none of it is personal.
"Sorry, this page doesn't work with IE6. Click here to download Mozilla Firefox"
Throwing a bunch of people under the bus as pawns to 'get Apple's attention' is abhorrent. The 'your kind' wording really takes it that much lower.
Personally mandating a single WebView on iOS ends up being a good thing for iOS Users: a fast, responsive, quality rendering engine that has the same experience everywhere and gets updated with each major iOS release - dramatically reducing the permutations of rendering engine versions that needs to be tested against and supported.
One of the liberating things when first developing a Web App for iOS was only having to support a single modern browser, allowing usage of advanced features which weren't crippled by having to gracefully support old IE versions. Only having to target a single platform with limited resolutions is also one of the few benefits I see with native iOS development.
Apple have always put the end Users Experience before Developers, so it's primarily focused on maintaining a fast, fluid browsing experience on iOS which is the most used browser for tablets and smart phones and IMO still continues to provide the best browsing experience on any mobile device.
So it doesn't follow the feature-mill factory pushed by other browser vendors, I still prefer iOS's performance focus, yearly upgrade cycle which thanks to iOS's fast upgrade adoption, iOS Web Developers get to enjoy adopting new features long before Android Web Developers who have to support the old browsers shipped on JellyBean.
One of the liberating things when first developing a Web App for iOS was only having to support a single modern browser, allowing usage of advanced features which weren't crippled by having to gracefully support old IE versions. Only having to target a single platform with limited resolutions is also one of the few benefits I see with native iOS development.
Apple have always put the end Users Experience before Developers, so it's primarily focused on maintaining a fast, fluid browsing experience on iOS which is the most used browser for tablets and smart phones and IMO still continues to provide the best browsing experience on any mobile device.
So it doesn't follow the feature-mill factory pushed by other browser vendors, I still prefer iOS's performance focus, yearly upgrade cycle which thanks to iOS's fast upgrade adoption, iOS Web Developers get to enjoy adopting new features long before Android Web Developers who have to support the old browsers shipped on JellyBean.
Happiness in slavery? It is easier to develop for a single target, as always, but in this case the single target is starved for both features and bugfixes. I'm not sure what you developed, but in the last few months alone, we've run into bugs that have apparently existed and been known about for years. There really is no excuse.
> Happiness in slavery?
That's an absurd statement. Maybe your argument has merit, maybe it doesn't, but let's not suggest that our smartphones browsers are anything akin to slavery.
That's an absurd statement. Maybe your argument has merit, maybe it doesn't, but let's not suggest that our smartphones browsers are anything akin to slavery.
It's an idiom from "Story of O". The comment was toward being happy under forceful limitation. But gosh, sometimes discussing things on HN feels like trying to talk about poetry with Vulcans. "ILLOGICAL, DIDN'T READ THE REST"
Speaking of talking about poetry with Vulcans, do you want to cite those bugs? I'm curious, because I've developed against Mobile Safari for years, and never actually had any particular difficulty; granted this has been mostly personal projects and little of it has entailed the use of bleeding-edge web technologies, but I'm still rather curious about this "antiquated, buggy monster" side of Safari that you seem to be seeing.
It's rather obvious (even if you're unfamiliar with the source) that he/she's not comparing browser choice to literal slavery of the user. The only absurdity here is your choice to take the most outrageous possible interpretation of his comment and then write a comment entirely focusing on this imaginary transgression.
No. It's the same hyperbolic and emotive language that is used in these discussions. It adds nothing and riles people up, which I'm going to guess is the desired result. The way it is delivered is basically pseudo-intellectual bullshit.
I suppose that's a fair point. My perspective on people getting unnecessarily riled up by the use of metaphor is usually that those people need to re-examine the level of maturity with which they're approaching the discussion. But to your point, the fact that it's someone else's "fault" doesn't change the fact that using language like that can provoke emotion that derails the conversation.
>One of the liberating things when first developing a Web App for iOS was only having to support a single modern browser
I can imagine that it is liberating just as it would be liberating to develop exclusively for any other browser. But what is the use case for that? I wasn't even aware that "iOS Web Developers" exist.
I can imagine that it is liberating just as it would be liberating to develop exclusively for any other browser. But what is the use case for that? I wasn't even aware that "iOS Web Developers" exist.
I think the point was that iOS as a platform presents far fewer challenges to web developers than Android does because of the multitude of different browsers people use on Android. PPK has written at length about the problem with all the different versions and forks of Chrome that exist on Android here:
http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2015/02/chrome_conti...
and here:
http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2015/02/counting_chr...
http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2015/02/chrome_conti...
and here:
http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2015/02/counting_chr...
I get that, but if I create a web app, I have to support all kinds of different browsers anway, so how does it help to know that iOS users are only going to be using Safari? I'm not aware of any website that is exclusively used by iOS users.
Yes, excactly. Since you have to support all the browsers, you should be thankful that there aren't more of them. On iOS you only have one browser to test against and you're done. OTOH it's practically impossible to exhaustively test on Android. Being a web developer I know which of those two platforms I wish were more like the other.
I don't think you said "iOS" often enough in that post.
(More seriously, people really want to target "the web" as a platform without having to handle the various mobile devices seperately)
(More seriously, people really want to target "the web" as a platform without having to handle the various mobile devices seperately)
Fair enough, but how are you defining that web platform? W3C seems like a reasonable bet, but many of the features developers want remain fairly far from recommendation level.
Actually really agree with this. As someone who develops for Android I can't tell you much potential "mental damage control" you have to be prepared for with implementing stuff. Accommodating the different support packages, APIs, device & hardware specifications - it's a headache sometimes. But I think that's part of why I love it too, the freedom and "openness" relative to iOS eco system.
That being said - Apple might be closed and all the rest, but make no mistake: they know their customer and they are willing to defend them. Even if it means pissing people off. Which is kinda nice.
That being said - Apple might be closed and all the rest, but make no mistake: they know their customer and they are willing to defend them. Even if it means pissing people off. Which is kinda nice.
One of the nice things is that if a site works in Facebook or Twitter's webview, it works in Safari. It's the same engine.
> quality rendering engine that has the same experience everywhere and gets updated with each major iOS release
That's the problem. Google can regularly update Chrome without updating the OS. Apple can't because it's a system app.
> Apple have always put the end Users Experience before Developers, so it's primarily focused on maintaining a fast, fluid browsing experience on iOS
Not really. They actually started backtracking on most of those. They even allow third party keyboards now, most of which are slower and harder to use than the stock iOS keyboard. Considering keyboard is a more integral part of the OS, it seems weird they still do not allow third party browsers.
That's the problem. Google can regularly update Chrome without updating the OS. Apple can't because it's a system app.
> Apple have always put the end Users Experience before Developers, so it's primarily focused on maintaining a fast, fluid browsing experience on iOS
Not really. They actually started backtracking on most of those. They even allow third party keyboards now, most of which are slower and harder to use than the stock iOS keyboard. Considering keyboard is a more integral part of the OS, it seems weird they still do not allow third party browsers.
Apple can push a iOS point release that just includes an update a single system app (they've did it before for the 5S's compass bug, so there's precedence even) and users will actually get to download it quickly and there's no specially carrier approval bullshit that forced Google to go with a downloadable browser app pushed through the Play Store. Being forced to use the Play Store for system functionalities has not only destroyed the "open source" nature Android once had, but also delivers bugs to users faster than ever, since they push Play Services updates damn near monthly and with far worse QA than system updates.
> Apple can push a iOS point release that just includes an update a single system app
Which is inefficient and inconvenient. Google updates Chrome every 6 weeks while you are sleeping, as with all other Play Store apps. With an iOS system update, you have to click 5 different dialog boxes and go through several steps such as rebooting.
> and users will actually get to download it quickly and there's no specially carrier approval bullshit
Chrome updates don't go through carrier approval. Since Google does not need to update Android to be able to update Chrome, it's hard to understand your point here.
> that forced Google to go with a downloadable browser app pushed through the Play Store.
Chrome did not replace AOSP browser. Android still has its own browser.
> Being forced to use the Play Store for system functionalities has not only destroyed the "open source" nature Android once had
Chrome is not a "system functionality". It's an optional app you can download from the store. Android still has its own open source browser.
Which is inefficient and inconvenient. Google updates Chrome every 6 weeks while you are sleeping, as with all other Play Store apps. With an iOS system update, you have to click 5 different dialog boxes and go through several steps such as rebooting.
> and users will actually get to download it quickly and there's no specially carrier approval bullshit
Chrome updates don't go through carrier approval. Since Google does not need to update Android to be able to update Chrome, it's hard to understand your point here.
> that forced Google to go with a downloadable browser app pushed through the Play Store.
Chrome did not replace AOSP browser. Android still has its own browser.
> Being forced to use the Play Store for system functionalities has not only destroyed the "open source" nature Android once had
Chrome is not a "system functionality". It's an optional app you can download from the store. Android still has its own open source browser.
> That's the problem. Google can regularly update Chrome without updating the OS
If you're referring to Chrome on iOS, it uses Apple's Webkit/Webview as the rendering engine. The only thing Google is updating with app updates is the logic behind interaction with that webview, not the rendering engine itself.
If you're referring to Chrome on iOS, it uses Apple's Webkit/Webview as the rendering engine. The only thing Google is updating with app updates is the logic behind interaction with that webview, not the rendering engine itself.
I think the reference was to Chrome on Android, which (like most of the core Google apps) is treated as a separate app and updated independently and rather more frequently than OS updates, and contrasting that with iOS Safari, which is updated as part of the OS.
What made IE6 IE6 wasn't the technical choices it made, but the fact that whatever were its views, those were forced on the world by its market dominance.
The browser that is closer to that position now is Chrome, not Safari. The sad fact that Apple does not allow other browsers in their platform in fact may be overall a good thing if it keeps Google from owning the web alone.
Apple may need to do something or risk losing some of the appeal of iOS. But calling Safari the new IE is barking at the wrong tree.
The browser that is closer to that position now is Chrome, not Safari. The sad fact that Apple does not allow other browsers in their platform in fact may be overall a good thing if it keeps Google from owning the web alone.
Apple may need to do something or risk losing some of the appeal of iOS. But calling Safari the new IE is barking at the wrong tree.
Depending on which market share data you are reading - Chrome isn't clear cut market leader (http://venturebeat.com/2015/05/01/chrome-passes-25-market-sh...).
I am far from Google fan but calling Chrome is a problem is naive. I use Firefox on my Linux desktop and I can make Firefox default browser on my Android phone too but my wife is stuck with Safari on her iPhone - no matter what she wants. I think that is bit of a problem and should be addressed.
I am far from Google fan but calling Chrome is a problem is naive. I use Firefox on my Linux desktop and I can make Firefox default browser on my Android phone too but my wife is stuck with Safari on her iPhone - no matter what she wants. I think that is bit of a problem and should be addressed.
Still, chrome forces us devs to do a lot of stuff that we don’t want to — I personally found about a dozen layout bugs in Chrome that don’t exist in either IE11, Firefox, Opera 12 or Konqueror (which uses KHTML, the predecessor of WebKit).
Chrome just disables a bunch of JavaScript APIs on mobile, unless your site is .google.com or .youtube.com, etc.
If you develop only in chrome, you never notice, but if you develop in Firefox first, and your whole site doesn’t work in Chrome... well, shit.
And, on the other hand, we now have a bunch of sites with "works best in Google® Chrome™". Welcome to the 90s, Chrome is the IE6 of today.
Chrome just disables a bunch of JavaScript APIs on mobile, unless your site is .google.com or .youtube.com, etc.
If you develop only in chrome, you never notice, but if you develop in Firefox first, and your whole site doesn’t work in Chrome... well, shit.
And, on the other hand, we now have a bunch of sites with "works best in Google® Chrome™". Welcome to the 90s, Chrome is the IE6 of today.
I find the exceptions for Google sites particularly offensive. I wonder if it might bite them in the ass (as anti-competitive behaviour) one day.
Example for anyone unsure what we are referring to: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=178297#c...
Example for anyone unsure what we are referring to: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=178297#c...
Same here. I have android and GNU/Linux and Firefox is set up as default on both.
[deleted](1)
Apple will never let iOS become the janky malware fest that is Android. You can run FF and Chrome on iOS you just have to run executable code in Webkit.
What has to do the browser with malware?
It seems that the post is just a fest of FUD
It seems that the post is just a fest of FUD
[deleted](2)
What made IE6 was that it was a good browser when it first came out and the competitors were getting worse.
Some blame that on MS being anti-competitive but Netscape were busily shooting themselves in the foot, and had two distinct codebases for the browser, so having to make bug fixes, new feature implementations in two places and often screwing up.
Some blame that on MS being anti-competitive but Netscape were busily shooting themselves in the foot, and had two distinct codebases for the browser, so having to make bug fixes, new feature implementations in two places and often screwing up.
I think that depends on whether you're talking about IE6's earlier or later years. Earlier on it was probably what you said, but eventually it was a minority browser, except a particularly difficult one to support.
Except Apple very overtly neglects to fix huge bugs on Mobile Safari, so developers are locked into endless hacks to have anything substantial work correctly on iOS, which is a vital market segment. It may have been incompetence rather than willful neglect on Microsoft's part, but the end result for developers is the same. This is the right tree :)
The fact that Safari would have even less market share if other browsers were allowed onto iOS is not the preservation of healthy competition, it's undoing the distortions of unfair competition that allow an inferior product to gain disproportionately high market share. Browsers should be allowed to compete on their merits alone.
The problem is all in this fragment: "as a vendor of dominant mobile operating system". We all know Apple makes more money than any other mobile manufacturer, and we all know they are culturally dominant, but in terms of actual market penetration, they own 20% of the global market. Samsung gets 27%, just to mention one competitor.
This makes it extremely hard to get any sort of antitrust leverage against Apple. We can keep screaming at them until we're blue in the face and nothing will change.
This makes it extremely hard to get any sort of antitrust leverage against Apple. We can keep screaming at them until we're blue in the face and nothing will change.
I completely agree with you. But I would like to add that Apple holds most of the important users - those who are the most willing to spend time and money online.
Yeah, you could try to paint them as dominant in a specific market segment (rich people, whatever), but it would be very difficult. We're very far from the numbers Microsoft still has on the desktop, and a world apart from the 90%+ they had back in the Netscape-suit days.
9 out of 10 desktop computers still run Windows. 12% of those still run XP. There's still no 3rd option on the desktop; Linux has failed.
So, rather than fix a real problem, people start complaining about something a lot smaller: "18% of the world's phones run in a walled garden with a relatively modern browser."
So, rather than fix a real problem, people start complaining about something a lot smaller: "18% of the world's phones run in a walled garden with a relatively modern browser."
While Windows XP can run Firefox ESR, iOS of any version only runs whatever it had at last OS push.
Also, Linux works fine for plenty of people, sure miniscule in proportion, but it hasn't failed.
Also, Linux works fine for plenty of people, sure miniscule in proportion, but it hasn't failed.
Linux has always been fine for a minuscule proportion. It has failed to be a viable 3rd option on the desktop for 98% of the population.
But it has succeeded in being a viable desktop for software development for the web. I wouldn't call that a complete failure on the desktop.
98% of computer-using population will use whatever comes with the machine; Linux is viable but the hardware vendors are not pushing it, also because of Microsoft lobbying. On the other hand Android could be easily built on top of QNX and get the same market share.
I didn't ask anyone for an excuse.
Who cares?
People who think competition brings innovation. If 90% of cars were made by General Motors...
When you have 90% market share, you have a monopoly. It hinders innovation.
When you have 90% market share, you have a monopoly. It hinders innovation.
It does though. If Linux & Apple didn't exist, Microsoft would have a much shitty product. Kind of like apple's browser, since it doesn't matter that they keep it up to date since they have lock in.
Sounds convincing but a lie. Unfortunately, those pesky facts just keep getting in your way. Microsoft has always been the laggard in browser standards.
https://html5test.com/results/desktop.html
https://html5test.com/results/mobile.html
Sure, Apple has made Microsoft a little better but the monopoly that Microsoft has really means that they don't need to compete.
https://html5test.com/results/desktop.html
https://html5test.com/results/mobile.html
Sure, Apple has made Microsoft a little better but the monopoly that Microsoft has really means that they don't need to compete.
Linux makes browsers?
I'm talking about the OS.
Um, you could paint them as dominant in a "specific market segment" such as the entire US, too:
http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/07/02/apples-iphone-gain...
Apple's mobile market share in the US: 43.5% Samsung: 28.7% LG: 8.2% Motorola: 5.1% HTC: 3.8%
It always makes me laugh when people still, in 2015, try to pretend that Apple isn't dominant and getting more dominant with time, in the mobile space.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/07/02/apples-iphone-gain...
Apple's mobile market share in the US: 43.5% Samsung: 28.7% LG: 8.2% Motorola: 5.1% HTC: 3.8%
It always makes me laugh when people still, in 2015, try to pretend that Apple isn't dominant and getting more dominant with time, in the mobile space.
The words "dominant" or "powerful" or even "market leading" are not even close to the same thing as a monopoly. And the difference is extremely substantive.
[deleted]
The "Apple is not dominant" retort is very correct but also very frustrating.
Apple is dominant in the sense that they command an outsize portion of developer/consumer mindshare. So issues like this just get drowned out in all the fawning.
Apple is dominant in the sense that they command an outsize portion of developer/consumer mindshare. So issues like this just get drowned out in all the fawning.
Unfortunately Judges wouldn't agree that 'iPhone users' are their own market and agree that Apple has a massive market share which their abusing.
Because if they did, "Tide users" and "Ford owners" would be their own markets too which would mean that all brands would be monopolists by default.
You don't get to throw anti-trust at Apple because you can't be bothered to switch to a different type of smartphone, just like you can't throw anti-trust at Ford because you don't want to drive a Chevy. The notion is absurd.
You don't get to throw anti-trust at Apple because you can't be bothered to switch to a different type of smartphone, just like you can't throw anti-trust at Ford because you don't want to drive a Chevy. The notion is absurd.
> Because if they did, "Tide users" and "Ford owners" would be their own markets too which would mean that all brands would be monopolists by default.
Which could (in a formal logic, not juristic logic, sense) lead to an argument why anybody should be allowed to install any software they want on their devices - a demand that I, as a hacker, fully support.
Which could (in a formal logic, not juristic logic, sense) lead to an argument why anybody should be allowed to install any software they want on their devices - a demand that I, as a hacker, fully support.
I can change anything on my ford as long as the resulting vehicle is road legal.
Not without voiding the warranty. Incidentally, the exact same thing is true of the iPhone.
Do you think it's right to expect someone to warrant something with work after you have modified it beyond how it has been designed to be modified?
Is Ford violating anti-trust law by not letting you change the software (GSP app, for example) that runs on their dash system?
What does Ford do differently with respect to software on their, say, entertainment system or ECU computers that Apple doesn't do with their iOS devices to allow you to draw this distinction?
You can easily replace the ECU of the car.
Meaning that you can easily replace an entire computer system with another entirely different computer system? What stops you from doing the same with your iPhone? (i.e. buying, say, an Android device)
Have you personally ever done so? I have, and it ain't so easy, especially if you are not just swapping in a piggyback system, but actually installing a whole new ECU.
Yup. I agree with you 100%. This discussion was brought up earlier this week on HN and someone mentioned how Samsung can't get in trouble for anti-trust because you can't install an alternate browser on their TVs.
>we all know they are culturally dominant
And the reason they are is because they put user experience before developers or dogma.
And the reason they are is because they put user experience before developers or dogma.
This market share/mind share / profit share rhetoric changes nothing for the sizeable portion of Apple's iOS users. Last I checked there are half a billion of them - they have no choice but to use Safari.
Well, for one thing, they can stop buying products from a company that is openly hostile to consumer choice...
It's as if the people buying Apple products actually like Apple's choice…
Exactly. Occasionally I'll give Chrome, Firefox, among others a try, but I keep coming back to Safari. I hate the way the other browsers look, especially Chrome, and Safari is super quick while being easy on the battery.
Its being the only major browser that respects battery life is pretty much the only reason I use Safari. It hurts to see that "time remaining" indicator drop by 2 hours just because I have Chrome open.
I really miss Chrome's multi-profile support, but it's just so much heavier. Last time I used Firefox (admittedly ~3 years ago) it was even worse. System-wide beachballs. Much worse than having Eclipse open. That's what got me to switch to Chrome for a time, after being a FF user since the Phoenix/Firebird days.
I really miss Chrome's multi-profile support, but it's just so much heavier. Last time I used Firefox (admittedly ~3 years ago) it was even worse. System-wide beachballs. Much worse than having Eclipse open. That's what got me to switch to Chrome for a time, after being a FF user since the Phoenix/Firebird days.
That's because Apple actively provides Safari with advantages with regards to API access and performance. They royally screw over the other browser vendors.
Safari's engine, WebKit, is open source. There are no secret advantages. Other browsers are free to read WebKit's code and copy its techniques.
Not true.
Apple also owns the app store and the default configuration of the OS is moving towards only allowing app store software (has it already finished that transition)?
They can and will reject anyone who uses private apis that they themselves use.
In addition, because they own the OS they can require that a private API is only accessed by software signed by them.
It also could cause firefox to break on OS updates and would require firefox to keep abrest of those changes.
Here's a couple references:
Apple does use private APIs: http://www.wired.com/2008/02/firefox_developer_uncovers_appl...
Apple rejected firefox from the app store at some point for using private apis:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=636841
Apple also owns the app store and the default configuration of the OS is moving towards only allowing app store software (has it already finished that transition)?
They can and will reject anyone who uses private apis that they themselves use.
In addition, because they own the OS they can require that a private API is only accessed by software signed by them.
It also could cause firefox to break on OS updates and would require firefox to keep abrest of those changes.
Here's a couple references:
Apple does use private APIs: http://www.wired.com/2008/02/firefox_developer_uncovers_appl...
Apple rejected firefox from the app store at some point for using private apis:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=636841
You can still install any software you want on your Mac. As that bugzilla page says, Firefox already uses plenty of private APIs, so this doesn't seem to be a big deal in practice. And Firefox was not rejected from the App Store, another XUL client was (IMVU).
> Safari is super quick while being easy on the battery.
That's not surprising, considering it's the only product not forced to use the public web view object in iOS. It's like Microsoft Office, which has always used private MS apis that other products running on Windows were not allowed/supposed to.
That's not surprising, considering it's the only product not forced to use the public web view object in iOS. It's like Microsoft Office, which has always used private MS apis that other products running on Windows were not allowed/supposed to.
I believe they're talking about Desktop Safari, there's yet no Firefox for iOS to test.
I guess the same can be said about all the people buying Windows devices in the 90s. Everything is absolute, 1:1 after all - you buy something and you must like everything about it 100%!
I use Chrome on my Mac and my iPhone. An I missing something here?
> We can keep screaming at them until we're blue in the face and nothing will change.
Well, unless you're Taylor Swift. Then Apple will do what you ask within 24h.
I know there's no Taylor Swift of the iOS software ecosystem, but I think that's attitude is defeatist. If more people complained about a lack of real browser choice on iOS, including developers and users, Apple would eventually have to cave.
Oh, and I don't think Apple had more than 20% of the U.S. ebook market, yet DoJ still sued them for price fixing - and Apple lost. So if we can find the will (political or otherwise), I think we can get Apple to allow other browsers.
In the U.S., where this case would be tried anyway, Apple has over 40% market share.
Well, unless you're Taylor Swift. Then Apple will do what you ask within 24h.
I know there's no Taylor Swift of the iOS software ecosystem, but I think that's attitude is defeatist. If more people complained about a lack of real browser choice on iOS, including developers and users, Apple would eventually have to cave.
Oh, and I don't think Apple had more than 20% of the U.S. ebook market, yet DoJ still sued them for price fixing - and Apple lost. So if we can find the will (political or otherwise), I think we can get Apple to allow other browsers.
In the U.S., where this case would be tried anyway, Apple has over 40% market share.
> If more people complained about a lack of real browser choice on iOS, including developers and users, Apple would eventually have to cave.
Nope. Don't you remember just a few years ago, when everyone was screaming at Apple for years to put Flash on its mobile devices? Apple never caved. Apple doubled down, because Apple was smart enough to figure out that Flash was a battery-sucking, security-ruining disaster.
Gee, kinda like allowing third parties to control the web browser on a mobile device would be. Fancy that!
Nope. Don't you remember just a few years ago, when everyone was screaming at Apple for years to put Flash on its mobile devices? Apple never caved. Apple doubled down, because Apple was smart enough to figure out that Flash was a battery-sucking, security-ruining disaster.
Gee, kinda like allowing third parties to control the web browser on a mobile device would be. Fancy that!
> Apple doubled down, because Apple was smart enough to figure out that Flash was a battery-sucking, security-ruining disaster.
Apple doubled down because Apple was never going to concede to ANY party that might take their control away ever again.
Apple is never going to concede on this either because eventually people would then use the browser to escape the App Store.
You can scream until you are blue in the face and Apple will ignore you because unfettered Javascript is an existential threat to their walled garden.
Apple doubled down because Apple was never going to concede to ANY party that might take their control away ever again.
Apple is never going to concede on this either because eventually people would then use the browser to escape the App Store.
You can scream until you are blue in the face and Apple will ignore you because unfettered Javascript is an existential threat to their walled garden.
DoJ sued Apple and a cartel of publishers which dominated the market: "The Publisher Defendants sold over 48% of all e-books in the U.S.". Big difference. Apple was central to the conspiracy to fix prices, but the main charge was really against the publishers.
Isn't Apple paying the fines? Did I miss that the publishers have to poney up too?
They settled.
I don't think the price fixing had anything to do with market share.
The publishers wanted bigger profits and Apple wanted a larger market share of eBooks. If anything they were attempting to break a monopoly.
The publishers wanted bigger profits and Apple wanted a larger market share of eBooks. If anything they were attempting to break a monopoly.
The fact that there's no legal remedy only highlights the inadequacy of the laws on the books.
Simple solution: require all OS vendors to permit opt-in, off-by-default sideloading.
Curate your app store all you want, but don't prevent your users from running whatever software they want on their own computers.
That would solve this.
Simple solution: require all OS vendors to permit opt-in, off-by-default sideloading.
Curate your app store all you want, but don't prevent your users from running whatever software they want on their own computers.
That would solve this.
Even Apple is allowing side loading from iOS9 iirc.
Via Xcode and only if you have the source code. Doesn't quite work for people trying to distribute apps that aren't allowed in the app store.
I dont imagine it will take someone long to work around that, they already gave you the tools in the form of bitcode.
That's all well and good, but Google can't exactly ask all their users to download Xcode and deploy some workaround to get a prebuilt Chrome binary bundled with Blink on their iPhone.
Jailbreaking it and installing it via Cydia would be easier.
Jailbreaking it and installing it via Cydia would be easier.
This is basically the anti-tivoization clause of the GPLv3. Look at how much fuss was caused by that.
Yes. Destroying your platform's security model is exactly what we need governments to do.
I'm tired of people repeating that false dichotomy.
Such a policy hasn't destroyed Mac OS X's security model and it wouldn't destroy iOS'.
Such a policy hasn't destroyed Mac OS X's security model and it wouldn't destroy iOS'.
Without being jailbroken it is nearly impossible to properly utilize alternative browsers. I particularly enjoy being able to choose my default browser (and mapping choice) for links. If when I click a link it always opens In safari, I end up using that browser a lot more than I would given a choice. Apple also hamstrings alternative browsers by not allowing them the ability to utilize the nitro JavaScript engine. The tweak nitrous allows chrome and other apps with in-app browsers the ability to do so, but it shouldn't have to be this way!
I would point out that WKWebView in iOS 8 provides full Nitro support, so that's no longer an issue. I'm not sure if browsers are using this yet, though – there was some talk about difficulties with certain features.
That is good to know. Is there a way to check whether an app is utilizing it or not?
No major browser uses `WKWebView` because it has very large gaping design holes, making it a bad choice for a browser.
Firefox for iOS is. But yes, the gaping holes make making something competitive problematic.
Hm, I wasn't actually familiar with the Firefox for iOS project as a real project, just plan. Thanks
https://github.com/mozilla/firefox-ios
Pretty active development. No releases on the app store, though.
Pretty active development. No releases on the app store, though.
Their blog post on May 22 about it: https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2015/05/22/update-on...
No promises, but we are in the end game for v1.0. Stay tuned.
I see you guys are developing some of it in Swift. Should be interesting once Xcode 7 arrives and the amount of changes it requires. I think you might have jumped the gun a little.
In my project, I implemented a small component in Swift, and was a pain to convert. The automatic source upgrade tool did a terrible job, doing more damage than good.
In my project, I implemented a small component in Swift, and was a pain to convert. The automatic source upgrade tool did a terrible job, doing more damage than good.
Safari is the problem. Even allowing choices doesn't matter
(see the whole IE issue for how competition dies in face of convenient defaults)
Its a problem because as opposed to the article view (who cares about a subset of advanced features) it also botches standard common and useful stuff, like positioning fixed element having a css transform differently to every other browser or misrepresenting the actual viewport dimension or having unreliable orientation change events.
(see the whole IE issue for how competition dies in face of convenient defaults)
Its a problem because as opposed to the article view (who cares about a subset of advanced features) it also botches standard common and useful stuff, like positioning fixed element having a css transform differently to every other browser or misrepresenting the actual viewport dimension or having unreliable orientation change events.
I don't disagree with the assertion that iOS needs greater browser choice, but, even were that to happen, Safari falling behind other browsers in standards support would still be an issue.
IE6 remained a thorn in the side of the web development community long after viable alternatives appeared.
IE6 remained a thorn in the side of the web development community long after viable alternatives appeared.
On the plus side, the rapid adoption of new versions of iOS means that should Apple improve Safari, the new version will quickly supersede the old, rather than having it linger around for years, as IE6 did.
Is this a problem with Android's Gingerbread-era browser too? There must be a long tail of users still using that and I don't remember it being particularly good.
So this guy is saying that if other vendors were able to implement their own engine on iOS, he'd no longer have to bother ensuring the work was compatible with the massively popular default browser on iOS?
The argument doesn't stand up that Safari is holding developers back because due to it's real world levels of usage by customers you'd still be unrealistic not to support it - that is unless people are planning a 90's style 'please use Google Chrome' on Safari, nice.
Basically the guy is lazy and wants to use some latest cool bleeding edge chrome feature and is annoyed he might have to do to some other work to support Safari.
I get the feeling this guy would be far more comfortable with a Google dominated Chrome monoculture of a Web.
The argument doesn't stand up that Safari is holding developers back because due to it's real world levels of usage by customers you'd still be unrealistic not to support it - that is unless people are planning a 90's style 'please use Google Chrome' on Safari, nice.
Basically the guy is lazy and wants to use some latest cool bleeding edge chrome feature and is annoyed he might have to do to some other work to support Safari.
I get the feeling this guy would be far more comfortable with a Google dominated Chrome monoculture of a Web.
No that's not what I'm saying in my post. A browser choice on iOS wouldn't make Safari go away, and wouldn't mean that developers shouldn't cater for mobile Safari.
But it would give us the option to deliver experiences for other browsers, that might lead to better and more innovative experiences for our end-users. We don't know, because we don't have the choice.
But it would give us the option to deliver experiences for other browsers, that might lead to better and more innovative experiences for our end-users. We don't know, because we don't have the choice.
[deleted]
I think you've misunderstood the post.
Many developers are still suffering from how MS throttled back on browser development, but there's an end in sight. Users made that happen by voting with their feet.
On iOS, there's nowhere else to go, so no user vote.
Yes, we'll still have to support Safari, but if Apple's browser starts to lose users on their own OS, they'll have to compete on quality/features or continue to lose users. For developers and users, that's win-win.
Many developers are still suffering from how MS throttled back on browser development, but there's an end in sight. Users made that happen by voting with their feet.
On iOS, there's nowhere else to go, so no user vote.
Yes, we'll still have to support Safari, but if Apple's browser starts to lose users on their own OS, they'll have to compete on quality/features or continue to lose users. For developers and users, that's win-win.
> Yes, we'll still have to support Safari, but if Apple's browser starts to lose users on their own OS, they'll have to compete on quality/features or continue to lose users.
That presupposes that Apple cares if a small number of users switch to Firefox or Chrome.
That presupposes that Apple cares if a small number of users switch to Firefox or Chrome.
Microsoft didn't care for years, but as more users switched they eventually started caring.
Based on the points made, I'm wondering what web developers are building in the UI that requires the latest and greatest web engine technology in Chrome or Opera?
The reason I'm asking is that I understand the request for more choice, but I've also seen Android developers struggle to keep up with multiple versions of just Google Chrome on different versions of Android. I've also gotten rid of Chrome on my personal Macbook Pro because of how resource abusive it is. There are also security concerns with allowing third party programs to have direct access to a device that contains a lot of users personal information. Putting aside supporting fragmented web rendering engines, battery resources, and security; I'm really wondering exactly what Safari can't do that it needs to do?
The reason I'm asking is that I understand the request for more choice, but I've also seen Android developers struggle to keep up with multiple versions of just Google Chrome on different versions of Android. I've also gotten rid of Chrome on my personal Macbook Pro because of how resource abusive it is. There are also security concerns with allowing third party programs to have direct access to a device that contains a lot of users personal information. Putting aside supporting fragmented web rendering engines, battery resources, and security; I'm really wondering exactly what Safari can't do that it needs to do?
Unlike all other browsers, Safari refuse to implement Pointer Events. So you cannot use Pointer Events (easily) in your webapp; you have to polyfill for Safari. That was exactly the situation with IE in the 2000's. Edit: I mean with IE in the 2000s you always had to write exceptional code just for it, because it had this massive presence you could not ignore, and it refused to implement standards.
Even ignoring safari Pointer events are really still way to new to depend on with Android as most devices still doin't support it.
I didn't say, and didn't mean to imply, that all other browsers already have implemented it. They all, except Safari, have announced plans to implement it. (IE and Edge support it now; FF in two releases... Chrome has announced they will support it, but I don't see it yet on caniuse.com....) Safari, explicitly, has declared they will not.
Edit: http://caniuse.com/#feat=pointer. Only Chrome and Opera don't show it in upcoming releases. Opera presumably will support it the minute Blink does.
Edit 2: Chrome intent to support PE https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/blink...
Edit: http://caniuse.com/#feat=pointer. Only Chrome and Opera don't show it in upcoming releases. Opera presumably will support it the minute Blink does.
Edit 2: Chrome intent to support PE https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/blink...
So Apple hasn't announced plans to fix a bug. Therefore Safari is less up-to-date than other browsers.
Nice.
Nice.
Apple is on record as opposing the spec. https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2012-December/... A bit more context here http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2015/02/tired_of_saf...
> I'm wondering what web developers are building in the UI that requires the latest and greatest web engine technology in Chrome or Opera?
I am guessing stuff like service workers, push notifications ect.
I am guessing stuff like service workers, push notifications ect.
In regards to "hacks and bugs" mentioned in the article:
pointer event madness. file selector crash. <option> crash. rem bugs. insane RAM usage. crash from RAM usage. crash from greedy CSS selectors. canplay event never fired on media.
That's just from the last few weeks. We've been making a hybrid app and it's been an absolute nightmare due to Apple bugs. Can't imagine anyone who has built a moderately sized web app would think Safari's biggest problem is just being a little slow on the uptake.
pointer event madness. file selector crash. <option> crash. rem bugs. insane RAM usage. crash from RAM usage. crash from greedy CSS selectors. canplay event never fired on media.
That's just from the last few weeks. We've been making a hybrid app and it's been an absolute nightmare due to Apple bugs. Can't imagine anyone who has built a moderately sized web app would think Safari's biggest problem is just being a little slow on the uptake.
A couple examples: Playing video without opening a full screen popup window. Preserving `position: fixed` elements in the right place while you type in a form. Properly emitting scroll events. Not throttling timers. Adding webcam/microphone API support. Allowing canvas contexts to access video content. Not downsampling images. Not immediately killing a page once it exceeds the JS heap limit. Not automatically deleting local storage and application cache. Implementing pointer events API. Adding an actual file picker (not only a photos picker). Exposing an API to control the virtual keyboard. Adding the full screen API. Allowing CSS transforms and filters to be applied to playing videos. Allow users to download files to iCloud Drive.
Thanks for the feedback. A lot of those features do make sense, but I'm wondering about something like a "file picker." iOS devices have abandoned the concept of a file system from the users perspective. I don't think anyone I know (Outside of fellow iOS developers) could tell me the `pwd` path to any of the files on their phone.
It seems almost like Apple is restricting some of these features in an effort to get developers to go native, because all of the functionality you've mentioned is available via native app SDK's. The main challenge is that you lose the web openness. Thanks again for the feedback and great points.
It seems almost like Apple is restricting some of these features in an effort to get developers to go native, because all of the functionality you've mentioned is available via native app SDK's. The main challenge is that you lose the web openness. Thanks again for the feedback and great points.
One relevant example is WebRTC.
WebRTC can be used on all platforms now (Linux, Windows, MAC, Android) except iOS because of it's Safari limitation.
There are a few WebRTC tools on iOS, including a browser: https://itunes.apple.com/app/bowser/id560478358?mt=8.
WebRTC remains a W3C draft, of course, and had been dragging on horribly.
WebRTC remains a W3C draft, of course, and had been dragging on horribly.
"Dragging" in what sense? ISTM several browsers found what they needed in the spec to implement it. [This isn't an endorsement of WebRTC, because I haven't used it.]
It's been going for four years and remains a draft, and rechartered earlier this year. As you say, there are a number of implementations (although I don't know how complete they are), so it's not clear why they aren't progressing to recommendation. Software projects :-)
Similarly, in Windows Store (of Windows 8 & 8.1 and Windows Phone 8 & 8.1), every browser is IE or IE-wrapped: so in Windows RT and Windows Phone environment (were only Windows Store apps are allowed), there is only one choice for browser, i.e. IE. Well, MS killed Windows RT and Windows Phone hasn't got that much of market share. Hopefully they will change these restrictions in Windows 10.
False, Google Chrome has thrived on Windows.
What I meant is those Windows where only Windows Store apps are allowed (i.e. Windows RT & Windows Phone).
Windows Phone (and Windows RT previously).
Windows 10 "Mobile" will probably suffer from the same lack of browser choice (on purpose, obviously).
Windows 10 "Mobile" will probably suffer from the same lack of browser choice (on purpose, obviously).
He's talking about Windows RT.
I have always been very surprised on how MS could get sued on bundling IE with Windows, without the same happening to Apple on IOS.
Microsoft was hit with an anti-trust suit in Europe at a time when they had >90% market share in desktop computing. Bundling Internet Explorer was seen as abusing their dominant market position.
In Europe, iOS has around 20% market share, whilst Android sits close to 70%. It's really hard to argue that Apple are exploiting their dominant market position. You'd have to count iPhone as its own market.
In Europe, iOS has around 20% market share, whilst Android sits close to 70%. It's really hard to argue that Apple are exploiting their dominant market position. You'd have to count iPhone as its own market.
Iphone is separate market due to lack of interoperability.
[Windows] is a separate market share due to lack of interoperability.
One reason: market share.
Android Browser is the new Internet Explorer along with the webkit engine (Safari included). I should make a blog post one day showing what you get with Firefox for Android and what you get with the Android browser.
Youtube, Gmail, Office 365, Google Maps, nothing works well with Firefox for Android nowadays.
Youtube, Gmail, Office 365, Google Maps, nothing works well with Firefox for Android nowadays.
I agree, I refuse to turn Chrome back on but it is tempting sometimes or even necessary. Most recently FF didn't correctly handle some intent and no app was found when a link was clicked. This was necessary for authenticating something for work. Very annoying. Anyway, the amount of Cool stuff posted here that does not work in FF desktop and requires Chrome is also quite high.
I don't see this as an issue as I use native apps for YT, Gmail and Google Maps anyway.
What's interesting is that YouTube app for iOS lacks some essential features that Android app has. For example, you can't go back to video you just watched. In Android it works with Back button, but there's no Back button on iPhone. You can have to go to history which breaks the nice user flow we have on Android and Desktop YouTube.
What's interesting is that YouTube app for iOS lacks some essential features that Android app has. For example, you can't go back to video you just watched. In Android it works with Back button, but there's no Back button on iPhone. You can have to go to history which breaks the nice user flow we have on Android and Desktop YouTube.
No I don't think that's anything particular to do with the fact that one is iOS and one is Android; Google's OWN YouTube apps are inconsistent.
The Android TV YouTube app, for example, has no way to subscribe to a channel. It also has no immediate 'go back to the video I was watching' either; you have to wait some amount of time until your YouTube history gets updated. This is Google's own YouTube app on their own platform.
The Android TV YouTube app, for example, has no way to subscribe to a channel. It also has no immediate 'go back to the video I was watching' either; you have to wait some amount of time until your YouTube history gets updated. This is Google's own YouTube app on their own platform.
I couldn't disagree more.
The mobile user experience would not be improved by having multiple web browsers, and my life as a developer would be a lot more annoying trying to support multiple mobile web experiences that differ significantly (otherwise what would be the point of alternative browsers.)
If Apple were to disallow alternative browsers on OS X, that would be disastrous. But OS X is a general computing platform. iOS is not. It is a device first and foremost. It does not need to be an open platform where any developer can do anything.
The mobile user experience would not be improved by having multiple web browsers, and my life as a developer would be a lot more annoying trying to support multiple mobile web experiences that differ significantly (otherwise what would be the point of alternative browsers.)
If Apple were to disallow alternative browsers on OS X, that would be disastrous. But OS X is a general computing platform. iOS is not. It is a device first and foremost. It does not need to be an open platform where any developer can do anything.
This is especially problematic for the market I work in - small shop, vertical market. Modern, fully-supported html5 and javascript means I can build cross-platform webapps that do really interesting stuff on desktops and mobile devices. Since I'm part of a team of two developing most of the application framework, I'm really not interested in building native apps for iOS and Android to go along with the desktop app- my time would be much better spent making sure the web app works well on all mobile platforms.
I've already run into this- I have to either polyfill or avoid using modern javascript APIs (localStorage, web workers) because there's absolutely no iOS option. The nature of my vertical market is such that I could get away with asking my users to run chrome or ff if one works better than the other, but I'm basically stuck with iOS / safari as the lowest common denominator, and have no real options to improve, other than just pulling support for iOS entirely (something I'm seriously considering).
I've already run into this- I have to either polyfill or avoid using modern javascript APIs (localStorage, web workers) because there's absolutely no iOS option. The nature of my vertical market is such that I could get away with asking my users to run chrome or ff if one works better than the other, but I'm basically stuck with iOS / safari as the lowest common denominator, and have no real options to improve, other than just pulling support for iOS entirely (something I'm seriously considering).
I recently switched from Chrome to Safari. It's a better experience for me.
The user interface in Safari is indeed very modern and rivals most if not flat out beat them.
But this is a backend problem. Safari is literally holding the web back by not properly supporting modern web technologies. And not allowing users to switch away from safari on one of the widest used platform is a huge problem
But this is a backend problem. Safari is literally holding the web back by not properly supporting modern web technologies. And not allowing users to switch away from safari on one of the widest used platform is a huge problem
Safari can't be switched to full screen on iOS. That's a point against the interface for me. I honestly have no idea where you're getting the idea that Safari flat out beats other browser interfaces?
Apple is generally very cautious when considering whether to add functionality that might be used to build potentially deceptive user experiences. I would think that full screen is such a functionality. They have a different metric for the concept of "beating other browser interfaces", one that puts a higher priority on protecting the privacy and other interests of the user.
Can't we enjoy a world with full screen goodness regardless of the edge-of-your-seat, pants on fire risks from such reckless behaviour?
Full screen is a familiar mode initialised by user action, for things like video on a website. You go into full screen, you come out of full screen. It's a well understood thing. The idea that a malicious website could trick you into thinking you're viewing your iPad's home screen... well that's a shaky argument, full of holes.
Every iPad user in the world knows what their home button does. Short of intoxicated illiterates swiping their iPads down scary street after visiting evil websites, there's zero issues. The only issue is Apple's unwillingness to share the "native" features with the web browser.
That tiny little 'x', you know the one, to close those pop-down messages "this site has an app". Bad UX for anyone wanting to dismiss that message. Tapping anywhere in the message except the store button should dismiss the message.
Full screen is a familiar mode initialised by user action, for things like video on a website. You go into full screen, you come out of full screen. It's a well understood thing. The idea that a malicious website could trick you into thinking you're viewing your iPad's home screen... well that's a shaky argument, full of holes.
Every iPad user in the world knows what their home button does. Short of intoxicated illiterates swiping their iPads down scary street after visiting evil websites, there's zero issues. The only issue is Apple's unwillingness to share the "native" features with the web browser.
That tiny little 'x', you know the one, to close those pop-down messages "this site has an app". Bad UX for anyone wanting to dismiss that message. Tapping anywhere in the message except the store button should dismiss the message.
Indeed, Apple briefly added a sort of full-screen mode to iOS Safari (Google "minimal-ui" viewport for more info) but removed it due to abuse.
What abuse?
Briefly googled but only got a bland "this feature has been removed" from Apple support doc. So where did you read that they removed it due to abuse?
I think it's a similar risk to letting people walk down the footpath. Oh no,they might be killed by falling tree branch, or hit by a car, or.... but they live another day. Most people will live another day with the full screen WMD in their browser features.
Briefly googled but only got a bland "this feature has been removed" from Apple support doc. So where did you read that they removed it due to abuse?
I think it's a similar risk to letting people walk down the footpath. Oh no,they might be killed by falling tree branch, or hit by a car, or.... but they live another day. Most people will live another day with the full screen WMD in their browser features.
>What abuse?
phishing attacks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phishing
http://feross.org/html5-fullscreen-api-attack/
>I think it's a similar risk to letting people walk down the footpath.
No, that's a really shitty analogy. It's more similar to a personal location-tracking mobile device where a lot of people store private and sensitive information, on which you can access web pages and install apps that have the ability to read that information, sometimes in ways beyond what the user expects.
phishing attacks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phishing
http://feross.org/html5-fullscreen-api-attack/
>I think it's a similar risk to letting people walk down the footpath.
No, that's a really shitty analogy. It's more similar to a personal location-tracking mobile device where a lot of people store private and sensitive information, on which you can access web pages and install apps that have the ability to read that information, sometimes in ways beyond what the user expects.
...not to mention that restrictions on what you can do with the WebView also restrict what you can eventually achieve with the UX, effectively crippling Safari's competition.
I'm talking about the desktop experience. Chrome was a hog on my machine and didn't offer anything explicitly better compared to Safari.
I personally prefer the cleanliness of the interface and the smooth scroll speed of Safari over Chrome and Firefox.
I personally prefer the cleanliness of the interface and the smooth scroll speed of Safari over Chrome and Firefox.
As usual with UI, it is very personal. I happen to agree that Apple's Safari UI, in both iOS and OS X is preferable to other browsers, but that is very personal. Others prefer Firefox, Chrome and even IE/Edge. And that's fine.
All we need is Taylor to sign-off/tweet on this. She already has the appropriate last-name for iOS-dev related credibility.
Since 2010 or so, I've had to monkey with code to get it to run in Safari (desktop and mobile) more than I've had to mess with it to work in IE. My, how times change.
So yeah, the problem is Safari. Thinking it will go away because of choice is naive. It's the default, and defaults stick around.
So yeah, the problem is Safari. Thinking it will go away because of choice is naive. It's the default, and defaults stick around.
Apple is the new Microsoft.
Safari isn't the problem. It's not chrome either. The problem is that 99.99% of people using the web via these browsers doesn't give a shit. It's up to us developers to build for what people are using right now.
It should be self-evident how wrong this is from the fact that UIs (web and otherwise) from (e.g.) the early 90s are pretty hideous (and much harder-to-use, in many cases)[1]. One has to balance between building for the present and moving the ecosystem and its capabilities forward.
[1] Note that this is an overlapping but different discussion from "the web was created for serving static pages and it should stick to that"
[1] Note that this is an overlapping but different discussion from "the web was created for serving static pages and it should stick to that"
I'm sure Apple will consider allowing proper web browser competition on iOS if either:
1) It's against the law not to do so.
2) Apple users flee iOS to Android for this reason.
Neither which seem to be the case, maybe in a couple of years?
Neither which seem to be the case, maybe in a couple of years?
Microsoft case has nothing to do with this - even the market share numbers (that are obviously way smaller in case of Apple) do not influence the absence of lawsuits.
Apple produces the hardware and the software.
Microsoft imposed software restrictions (or lets say defaults) on hardware sold by vendors which turned out undesirable for EU. If Apple offered iOS on other phones and restricted the browser application to Safari, they would obviously get sued.
Since they "own" the hardware, and bundle it with their own software - there's nothing illegal about it.
Not that I condone of that kind of behavior, just clearing up the reasoning that was not present in the article.
Apple produces the hardware and the software.
Microsoft imposed software restrictions (or lets say defaults) on hardware sold by vendors which turned out undesirable for EU. If Apple offered iOS on other phones and restricted the browser application to Safari, they would obviously get sued.
Since they "own" the hardware, and bundle it with their own software - there's nothing illegal about it.
Not that I condone of that kind of behavior, just clearing up the reasoning that was not present in the article.
Petition created: https://www.change.org/p/apple-allow-true-other-browsers-on-...
A good reason why such petitions are important is that the (sluggish) EU Commission competition authority needs to see such representative citizen efforts in order to look into the lack of browser choice in iOS.
You don't have to use iOS. So such petitions are pretty pointless.
I think it's being downvoted because a lot of geeks hate that they love Apple products.
It's a bizarre situation that results in some odd things, such as Macs and iPads being prevalent at OSS user group meetings.
It's a bizarre situation that results in some odd things, such as Macs and iPads being prevalent at OSS user group meetings.
You don't have to use a computer, either (you can also, say, use a typewriter).
Why is this being downvoted? Apple's financial success is a completely different beast from the monopoly that Microsoft enjoyed fifteen years ago.
Even today (!!) teachers and recruiters demand Microsoft Word files. My clients regularly force Skype and Google crap on me. In contrast, when has anyone ever demanded that you use an iPhone in a world where most devices run Android?
The problem is that Apple doesn't provide access to lower level APIs that would allow other browser engines to compete on performance and increased functionality. They can only compete on UI. This lack of competition is holding back the potential of the mobile web.
Chrome worked wonderfully on my iPhone 5, up until the point where I installed IOS8. It was unusable after that, so I had no choice but to switch back to safari.
Did they remove some low level API's in 8 that were available in prior versions?
Did they remove some low level API's in 8 that were available in prior versions?
No. There never were any low level API's. You're always using the webkit component; albeit one that's slightly slower than native safari.
Has Chrome not yet switched to using WKWebView? I know there was some talk about missing features.
The features are still missing as of iOS 9 SDK.
This isn't quite accurate – the limitation isn't on API access, which AFAIK would be sufficient to implement a browser. Rather it's an app store policy decision to reject apps that download and run executable code.
Since any web browser would have to do this in order to run Javascript, it's explicitly rejected. I'm not condoning that (or otherwise), but I don't think it's down to API limitations.
Since any web browser would have to do this in order to run Javascript, it's explicitly rejected. I'm not condoning that (or otherwise), but I don't think it's down to API limitations.
Actually, you cannot compile a modern JavaScript engine for iOS without a special entitlement, which is not normally available to developers. Modern JS engines compile JS code on the run and need to mark specific memory regions as executable. Unless your binary is signed with a specific entitlement, iOS kernel prevents you from marking memory regions as executable. Safari and WebContent are signed with a "dynamic-codesigning" entitlement, making them non-equals among binaries.
Is that really the limiting policy? Shouldn't that rule out any app using a web view (including Chrome on iOS) since they download and run Javascript?
I thought the policy was literally "no other browser engines are allowed".
I thought the policy was literally "no other browser engines are allowed".
Oh, you're right, it's even simpler:
Apps that browse the web must use the iOS WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript
Apps that browse the web must use the iOS WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript
It's nothing as technical as that. They just invoke the core-functionality duplication clause -- there's a webview class, if you reimplement it you're falling foul of the clause. Of course they control what functionality is considered "core", so they can decide at any point what is acceptable and what is not, which is exactly what they want.
This is especially a problem when a site has something broken in it (JS/large files/etc.) that causes the browser to crash. One has little recourse when this happens to every browser on the platform.
aka "Freedom Zero"
Kenneth, what is the radar ID of the enhancement request you have filed on this issue, so I can dupe it?
take Panic's Prompt, and use Lynx from your favourite vps. Although that may look a little hacky.
If android can support multiple browsers, why can't Apple?
Because they don't want to.
Why won't folks accept that the fact appeal wields major influence in Washington and Brussels, or the bureaucrats waiting for Apple's cashpile to get bigger so that they can stiff Apple for a bigger amount?
It makes you wonder whether these legislators are really committed to competition which I suspect they are not. Stiffing transgressors seems to matter more to them than genuine competition.
It makes you wonder whether these legislators are really committed to competition which I suspect they are not. Stiffing transgressors seems to matter more to them than genuine competition.
A concerted campaign of browser sniffing and delivering a "We don't serve your kind here" to Mobile Safari users is going to stand a much better chance of Apple's attention than a petition. There's nothing wrong with treating the current situation as just business, but if it really needs to change then that change has to be driven by market changes. A Hallmark Card to Tim Cooke ain't gonna do it.